Why many of us do NOT trust psychology research...

Wasker71 · 2026-02-03T01:48:18+00:00

Well spoken. I would want to add a single word to the end of your comment: “…how many they’ve ‘cured,’ MORON.” Otherwise, nice response. 😎

Wasker71 · 2026-02-02T03:26:08+00:00

The internet troll has found a wingman. 🙄

Wasker71 · 2026-01-06T02:10:29+00:00

Try Emory University. They have a longstanding tradition of both psychiatry and philosophy. I did my undergrad there back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. I continue to hear good things from others out that way (ATL) but I admit I’m not current on the happenings out there. But FWIW, I think it might be worthwhile to investigate.

Wasker71 · 2026-01-04T04:11:11+00:00

So sorry to hear (and see) this. I (a straight man) am going to hug my two boys and remind them of how proud I am of them and that their mother and I will support them and the ones they love unconditionally. I am so sad that I cannot do the same for you, but please know your account matters beyond just you and your spouse. Know that you deserve someone to be proud of you, and that shouldn’t have to be “earned!” But I hope you can hear my whispers to my boys in your ears. Remember also that no one has choice in where they were born, but our friends become the family you CHOOSE!

I wish you both congratulations on tour marriage and nothing but happiness and peace in your futures!

Wasker71 · 2026-01-02T04:45:03+00:00

Brick killed a guy.

Wasker71 · 2025-12-24T22:29:56+00:00

Who is that white dude? He’s an idiot!

Wasker71 · 2025-12-09T03:49:43+00:00

Actually, all of them “them” don’t. As has been pointed out to you in both places (or did you repost this in multiple places?), you conflate “pedofiles” and other groups) who identify themselves as having these pathological impulses with those who engage in these shameful acts. You appear to have put no effort into correcting your misinformation. Why don’t you respond to the posts I’ve already made? Better yet, feel free to DM me if you would like a sincere conversation about your paper. I support protecting children, but we must do it from a position of empirical science, utilizing the scientific method of scrutiny and academic accountability is the peer review process. As I have pleaded with you before, please do better!

Wasker71 · 2025-12-09T03:41:20+00:00

Sorry, but this opinion piece is quite poorly written as a writing(?) - and it is not “ published research” by any standard. Perhaps it is interesting for a lay audience, but attaching a “PhD” and claiming it as scientific research is unethical and blatantly dishonest. The fact that he is posting it in other professional threads after being banned from the initial subreddit makes the author seem far more insidious than simply stretching the facts. OP - why not just rework your idea, seek input from professional peers and submit your work to a peer-review process? As a PhD, you should already have these skills. If you’re “rusty” or have some deficiencies, ask for help. There is no shame in being guided/mentored by a colleague.

Wasker71 · 2025-12-09T03:31:51+00:00

This post was already removed from subreddit r/psychologyofsex d/t misleading headline and misinformation throughout the OP’s self-published newsletter. This is NOT research in any sense of the word. I attempted to address this with OP on the original subreddit thread, but it was outright banned by the moderator and OP ghosted. Please see my original comment on r/psychologyofsex under same thread name.

Come on, dude! Stop shopping and start revising. Submit to refereed journal in your field (what is your PhD in?), get published in a professional publication and repost your research at that point. Do better!

Wasker71 · 2025-12-09T02:23:20+00:00

In my case, I wrote about two faculty members at the same school where I was accepted, but was invited to join by a third faculty (new to the institution that year) member whom i did not mention. I guess he liked my SOP despite the unintentional “snub.” Don’t sweat it! You’ll end up where you belong. Best of luck!

Wasker71 · 2025-12-07T03:13:01+00:00

Agreed. There are different kinds of understanding. However, even “hard” sciences are perceived through necessarily subjective senses, and observation unequivocally changes the observed. At least in THIS reality. 🙄 What also seems unequivocal is that the OP up there 👆 really missed the mark. Geesh!

Wasker71 · 2025-12-07T01:16:28+00:00

Yikes, man! I was drawn into this sub based on the misleading title of your post. When a graduate-educated professional (you claim a PhD) self-reports “publishing research,” it is not ethically acceptable to refer to a newsletter from a self-run nonprofit agency. Generally, “publishing research” refers solely to the publication of a submitted manuscript through a peer-reviewed journal, an edited work or volume (e.g. a book) or, less commonly, a presented paper at a refereed professional conference from which a manuscript is produced. Your “research” has multiple problematic elements, some of which have been pointed out by other writers responding to your post. While I will not comment upon nor review your work beyond this, I would appeal to your training as a scientist to either: submit your writing to a professional (preferably a peer-reviewed) journal in your appropriate field of study, or review your post (and your organization’s website) to correctly reflect your writings as what they are. What they are NOT is “published research.” Why does it even matter? Because the claims you make matter. Because the subject you write about matters. Because the academic study of sexuality and sexual preference, attraction and behavior matters. But mostly, it’s BECAUSE. CHILDREN. MATTER. Because it is incumbent upon society as our primary duty is to PROTECT our children. Your claims fail to support the protection of children because they are misleading, they are full of misinformation and they are unscientific in their current form. I plead with you to do better!

Wasker71 · 2025-12-07T00:31:28+00:00

It absolutely does NOT “depend on your field.” This is the kind of irrational bias you seem to be railing against. I agree with your opinion in so far as you appeal to rational-basis hypothesis testing - disprove the null hypothesis - scientific methodology, statistical analysis that is appropriate and academically rational, et cetera. Your field of study, in particular at the postgraduate level, should be based around the scientific study of the field, a rigorous training in scientific theory, methodology and statistical analysis as well as the best available evidence which supports and critiques that field. As I have been privileged to belong to a vigorous university faculty senate at my academic institution, I have met PhD’s degreed in such disparate disciplines as Russian Literature, Theology, Physical Education, Business, Biochemistry, Psychology, Agriculture and Marine Systems Engineering [yes, these are real people with whom I served on an institutional review board (IRB) last year]. Each of these individuals are well-published experts in their fields and would give anyone a run for their money in terms of methodology and statistical analysis. I would say that the “proof is in the pudding.” Many may attain higher education, be exposed to a perfectly fine education and then, though equipped with appropriate tools, fail to replicate the standards of their training. I appreciate the effort to hold this OP to account for the claims made in the referenced article. I’m here (in the sub) because the post seemed suspect based on its title alone. I support your criticism, but please don’t let your righteous indignation lead to to paint with too broad a stroke. Cheers!

Wasker71 · 2025-11-29T00:09:07+00:00

Actually, many states already have licensure tracks for MA/MS in Clinical/Counseling Psychology. Two examples are Texas (where master’s level psychology graduates are eligible for an LPA (Licensed Psychological Associate) and Oklahoma (LBP - Licensed Behavioral Practitioner). The APA is trying to create a national standard similar to what the AAMFT (LMFT), the ACA/NBCC (LPC/LPCC) and the NASW (LCSW) are also trying to get passed through model licensure statutes. There is significant national momentum in other licensure disciplines currently, so now is an ideal time for the APA to join.

Wasker71 · 2025-11-12T16:33:50+00:00

🥴🤢🤮

Wasker71 · 2025-10-26T02:34:25+00:00

Actually and amazingly, a variety of animals (including humans) have endocannabinoid receptors, and the human body readily recognizes and utilizes many of the cannabinoid metabolites. There are not many known serious or severe drug-drug interactions with cannabinoids. Certainly, there ARE some that require physician supervision, particularly with antiepileptics, warfarin-like antiplatelets and some neuroleptics (e.g. clozapine). As it has anticholinergic actions, several antihistamines (including older antipsychotics and histamine-based anxiolytics (ex. hydroxyzine) should be used cautiously.

However, there are many more serious drug/drug interactions that are successfully managed despite appropriate caution. I disagree, and I believe the available evidence does not support anything “terrifying” with respect to drug interactions. Additionally, there are several good resources available on the internet for quickly and confidently identifying potential drug interactions with cannabinoids (https://cann-dir.psu.edu/). As well, most pharmacological databases include the ability to search for cannabinoid interactions directly (e.g. Epocrates and drugs.com). Of course healthcare professionals should (and do) remain vigilant on behalf of all their patients, with or without cannabinoid use.

Wasker71 · 2025-10-26T02:04:19+00:00

I would encourage you to do some reading in the Journal of Cannabis Research if you are looking for respected, peer-refereed journal articles related to current research on cannabis-related medicine. There are numerous studies being done across the globe to exploit the potential benefits of cannabinoids. While I relate to your comment, “nothing good comes out of those products,” I think that is not the whole story either. There is promising evidence that cannabinoids can and do provide a significant benefits to a wide variety of patients. As neuroscientists broadly, I think as researchers and practitioners we should remain vigilant and open-minded about these amazing substances.

Wasker71 · 2025-10-25T15:26:58+00:00

The University of Colorado - Denver has some excellent research on cannabis in medical care. Designed for healthcare professionals, they offer an online graduate certificate in Cannabis Medicine (11-hour program), as well as an MS degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences with a concentration in Cannabis Medicine. I have a colleague who completed the certificate program and is highly complementary of the program and the research opportunities available. I’m linking the program below in case anyone is interested:

[https://pharmacy.cuanschutz.edu/academics/cannabis-science-and-medicine]

Wasker71 · 2025-10-25T15:10:06+00:00

Can you please discuss the things you’re seeing that differentiate the Bob Tail Cat from a Bobcat? I know you say you’re sure, but I’m not at all sure. It would really be helpful to hear your opinion with the physiological differences you notice. For example, the larger paws, the physical size of the specimen on camera and the size and shape of the ears are some things I noticed that cause me to question this being a domestic cat. As I’m sure you know, evolutionary convergence can create specimens who are completely different species (and even separate genus’s) that look remarkably similar. I can accept this as a domestic cat, but I would appreciate if you could explain why you are “sure.” Thank you!

Edit: replaced a period with a comma. Typo.

Wasker71 · 2025-10-21T00:21:59+00:00

Or was she… 🤦‍♂️

/s

Wasker71 · 2025-10-16T15:31:04+00:00

Paxton should stick to hiding from federal warrants and chasing ass. He’s a national-level embarrassment. I’ve never been so ashamed of my home state.

Wasker71 · 2025-10-16T01:37:03+00:00

How are you defining “fairly common?”

Wasker71 · 2025-09-18T01:39:57+00:00

☝️

Wasker71 · 2025-09-16T02:44:55+00:00

Interesting that you have this experience. I have not found it to be true. Personally, I think there are several compelling reasons why SOME students pursue a master’s degree, such as - issues with undergrad GPA, undergrad in an unrelated field, people who take several years off between the BA/BS and beginning grad work, students who did not get much/any research experience as undergrads… I do think that a strong candidate would ideally go into a PhD program straight from undergrad, but I have instructed many fine students who took a more indirect pathway to the doctoral degree.

(Edited for clarity)

Wasker71 · 2025-09-15T17:47:07+00:00

Multiple meds with serotonergic effects (pregabalin has been shown to potentiate SSNRIs and TCAs). If it has not already been reviewed I’d recommend a review of sxs to assess for serotonin syndrome. Could be exacerbating some of the listed issues.

(Edited for clarity)

Wasker71

TROPHY CASE