Psychology has tested psychology. It is great.


Many times we see advertisements for products where the makers claim that their product is better then that of their competitors because they had asked 10 people if they liked it. The Ad then goes something like: ACME is found to be the best of all other products study shows.

In extremely tiny lettering in a 10 second flash it says in at the bottom of the screen: Results from self report among 10 participants.

The same thing is done in soft science too. Recently a blatant self promotional Psychology piece caught my eye thanks to Neuroskeptic

Researchers have wondered how the brain creates emotions since the early days of psychological science. With a surge of studies in affective neuroscience in recent decades, scientists are poised to answer this question. In this target article, we present a meta-analytic summary of the neuroimaging literature on human emotion. We compare the locationist approach (i.e., the hypothesis that discrete emotion categories consistently and specifically correspond to distinct brain regions) with the psychological constructionist approach (i.e., the hypothesis that discrete emotion categories are constructed of more general brain networks not specific to those categories) to better understand the brain basis of emotion. We review both locationist and psychological constructionist hypotheses of brain–emotion correspondence and report meta-analytic findings bearing on these hypotheses. Overall, we found little evidence that discrete emotion categories can be consistently and specifically localized to distinct brain regions. Instead, we found evidence that is consistent with a psychological constructionist approach to the mind: A set of interacting brain regions commonly involved in basic psychological operations of both an emotional and non-emotional nature are active during emotion experience and perception across a range of discrete emotion categories.

You can buy/access it here (don’t it’s a waste of money)

The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review

Hopeless mess of psychological jargon

First horror sentence:
Researchers have wondered how the brain creates emotions since the early days of psychological science.

First of all the brain doesn’t ‘create’ emotions. Emotions are complex preprogrammed reaction patterns buried deep in the older parts of the brain. What the ‘researchers’ are looking for is how this propagates into the higher order processes. And that’s blatantly obvious, you don’t need to look for it since the early days of astrology, oops psychology. It is accumulated in the overall storyline by the storyteller. See:

The Monkey on the Ape’s Back

The self promotional Conclusion, we were right because we researched our own work and it says so:

Instead, we found evidence that is consistent with a psychological constructionist approach to the mind

Read this well.

Then think about the advertising of ACME claiming ACME is the best because ACME asked 10 of it’s employees if they found ACME to be the best.

Because what is the premise:

Using currently available methods we can’t find the the ‘center of emotions’ hence there is no center of emotions, hence emotions are produced on the ‘go’ by some mysterious higher order method.

By that logic you could just as well say: there was warming last few decades, we can’t find out why, so it must have been anthropogenic…. Equally surreal.

There indeed is no ‘center of emotions’. How could there be. It’s complex reaction pattern. It doesn’t involve A set of interacting brain regions commonly involved in basic psychological operations of both an emotional and non-emotional nature are active during emotion experience and perception across a range of discrete emotion categories

It’s a fixed pattern that gets called into action the same a walk command makes the motorcortex pull/relax the right muscles.

Don’t let psychology near a human brain, it can only lead to total incomprehension.
At the very best (excepting clinical psychology, which isn’t really psychology but actual science) psychology has the same quality as astrology. They have the same kind of jargon, factfree science and totally subjective interpretative results.

We shall prove it, regardless objectivity. FAT is bad. Cognitive Dissonance strikes again.


Plos published a nice article exemplifying how deep the cognitive dissonance of the medical world regarding FAT is BAD has become.

The article boldly claims to have added to the case of there being a causal link between BMI and IHD, in other words FAT is BAD. Climate alarmism is spreading as a ‘scientific method’.

See The disease FAT does not exist

What are the facts? BMI is a lousy way to measure body mass. It doesn’t differentiate between muscle mass and other mass, nor by type of other mass. As such is it is virtually meaningless. A calculation that gives the same value to a highly trained heavy weight boxer and a couch potato is definitively faulty.

So the basic assumption is already false, so the whole article is useless. However to add insult to injury the final conclusion heavily promotes the idea that FAT is BAD by suggesting (not proving by any scientific standard) that there is a mathematical calculated link between BMI
(i.e. FAT Oh NO, FAT!!!!)
and IHD and therefore causality is overwhelmingly likely but at the same time admitting that the real causality is NOT BMI but other factors.

It seems there is so much grantmoney floating around to fuel the obesity craze that any paper gets published nowadays in a frantic scramble for the big bucks.

A sad state of affairs indeed.

The offending article (PDF alert):
Proving cognitive dissonance is rampant

Update:

Who’d have thought:

Cholesterol of any kind doesn’t change CVD risk

Basic assumption that Cholesterol causes CVD is again proven wrong, but still they don’t get the message.

Update:

But statin vendors need not worry. A totally new even more scary reason has been discovered to take statins:

Cholesterol causes Alzheimer!!!!

Quick buy that stuff.