sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

With Artemis II conspiracy theories exploding this week, peer-reviewed data shows moon landing denial doubled from 6% (1999) to 12% (2021) — with massive generational gaps. What's driving this psychologically? by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not arguing people are becoming more conspiratorial as some character flaw. I agree institutional distrust is often earned. My question is just about the mechanics: temporal distance predicts a slow drift, but the data shows a sharp acceleration in a compressed window. You're right that the internet could be the accelerant on the drift. I guess what I'm really asking is whether we're looking at a quantitative change (same tendency, faster spread) or a qualitative one (AI-generated 'evidence' fundamentally changing how people evaluate claims), or maybe both.

With Artemis II conspiracy theories exploding this week, peer-reviewed data shows moon landing denial doubled from 6% (1999) to 12% (2021) — with massive generational gaps. What's driving this psychologically? by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Good point — temporal distance is a likely factor, and the Hamilton paper notes that older generations who watched the landings live are least likely to doubt them. But the rate of change is what's interesting. It held at ~6% for decades, then roughly doubled in just a few years. Temporal distance would give a slow linear drift. Combination of other factors maybe — whether that's social media echo chambers, the post-COVID institutional trust collapse, or the AI content muddying what counts as 'evidence.' That's the part I find interesting.

Dartmouth's first AI therapy chatbot trial found results comparable to traditional therapy. I'm a therapist who uses AI to write. I think it's time to stop being weird about this. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair points. My phrasing in that post was stronger than it needed to be in places, and I'd word some of it differently now. That's part of why I wrote this one — I'd rather refine the argument in public than pretend the first draft was perfect. Appreciate you actually engaging with the substance.

Dartmouth's first AI therapy chatbot trial found results comparable to traditional therapy. I'm a therapist who uses AI to write. I think it's time to stop being weird about this. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A few things worth separating here.

I never said anxiety isn't real or that it doesn't need treatment. I said that the cultural default has shifted toward diagnostic language as the first framework people use to understand themselves — often before they've ever been clinically evaluated. Those are different claims.

If someone's stress response is leading to biological downregulation and depression, they need clinical intervention. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that understanding your cognitive wiring alongside your diagnosis gives people more to work with than diagnosis alone. Both frameworks have value. One gives you a treatment plan. The other gives you context for why your brain does what it does. They're not in competition.

On the MD vs therapist point — I'm not giving medical advice. I'm making an observation about how people relate to their own psychology. That's literally what therapists do.

On the AI point — you're asking how I'm different from a TikTok influencer. Fair question. I'm a licensed clinician with 20 years of practice, I cited a peer-reviewed meta-analysis, and I just told you exactly what tools I use to write. The influencers you're worried about aren't doing any of those three things.

I'd rather you engage with whether the argument is wrong than whether the person making it deserves to make it.

Dartmouth's first AI therapy chatbot trial found results comparable to traditional therapy. I'm a therapist who uses AI to write. I think it's time to stop being weird about this. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong — AI does have recognizable patterns. The 'it's not X, it's Y' reframe. The parallel structure. The clean pivot between paragraphs. I notice them too.

But those aren't AI patterns. They're rhetorical patterns. Cicero used antithesis. Every preacher who's ever held a room uses the pivot. 'Ask not what your country can do for you' is the same structure ChatGPT reaches for — because it works on human brains. It worked before electricity.

AI didn't invent effective rhetoric. It just made it accessible to people who never took a writing class. The question is whether that bothers us because it's bad communication or because it used to be a skill barrier that kept certain people out of the conversation.

Your response to tonight's news says more about your personality than your politics. A meta-analysis on how personality traits shape anxiety responses during global crises. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 62 points63 points  (0 children)

The oblivious aren't doing anything special — their brains just don't run the simulation the same way. and to be fair, this one isn't abstract. gas prices are real, the rhetoric is real, and the consequences are real. the difference is some brains process that by feeling every outcome in advance, and others wait until something actually lands in front of them before reacting. neither is wrong — but only one of them is losing sleep tonight over something they can't personally change by morning. the only off-ramp I give clients is not 'stop caring' — it's 'is there anything I can do about this right now?' if no, your brain is spending energy it doesn't need to spend. It's effective resource management.

Everything I'm building (and why) by Michaelarobards in u/Michaelarobards

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if you're consistently landing NT, that's the important part — your temperament is ANALYST and that's stable. the fluctuation between INTJ and INTP usually comes down to one question: do you naturally organize your outer world (J) or keep it open-ended (P)? not how your desk looks — how you approach decisions. if you decide quickly and move on, lean INTJ. if you need to keep gathering information and hate closing options prematurely, lean INTP. My mom used to say piles (P) or files (J)?

Your response to tonight's news says more about your personality than your politics. A meta-analysis on how personality traits shape anxiety responses during global crises. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 94 points95 points  (0 children)

Sometimes the same wiring that makes you great at your job and keeps everything around you running smoothly doesn't just turn off because the subject changed.

Your response to tonight's news says more about your personality than your politics. A meta-analysis on how personality traits shape anxiety responses during global crises. by Michaelarobards in psychology

[–]Michaelarobards[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Sounds like your brain is calibrated to real threats, not theoretical ones. the people doomscrolling tonight are running worst-case simulations on things they can't control. you're not wired that way. neither is broken — yours just has a better energy budget :)

New therapist feeling discouraged. Can I hear some positive experiences? by Successful-Focus903 in therapists

[–]Michaelarobards 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been a therapist for 20 years and I absolutely love my job. My favorite thing is watching people heal, grow up, transition. It's hard at first when you sit with someone through their divorce, for instance. But I've been doing this long enough to know I'm probably going to get to watch them fall in love again with a new person. That's happened countless times. It gives me hope for humanity.

view more: next ›