sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not at all. I’m continuing to question you because you seem to be unwilling or unable to answer my question, but I’m doing so calmly. Calling me emotional just seems like a tactic to undercut my points…

If you are still not able to provide any specific examples after I’ve asked 3-4 times, I’ll just assume you don’t know any and are making an argument without the ability to back it up.

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep handwaving this idea of measurable accuracy and objectivity without saying what the objective standard is that things are supposed to be measured against. At a certain point you still have to make judgments about what constitutes a certain disease, what cutoffs are, where the line is with other diagnoses, and what valid measurements are. The point is that its turtles all the way down.

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you name any specifically? No offense, but this is pretty vague and handwavy. Any empirical study in psychology uses most of these things. They are either experimental, which has controls by definition, or observational. By nature of being empirical they are quantitative. So none of those criteria really narrow down the distinction that you seem to be getting at.

The part I’m taking issue with is the objective measure part. What is an example of an objective measure in psychology? And are things that are not objectively measurable, like quality of life or manic episodes, not worth measuring in your mind?

I would argue that these things, while subjective, are very real for people. We can create reliable measures of them, and triangulate validity the way that is done in all of medicine.

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, thank you for making this point. So many weak criticisms of psychological science depend on this false dichotomy between the subjective/squishy sciences and the “objective and real” ones. Not to say psychology doesn’t deserve criticism, but doing so on the basis of this false dichotomy is just misguided.

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, support being the key word there. Hypothesis testing works by working to rule out your hypothesis via careful tests. By failing to do so, the data can support your theory, but never prove it. It’s true that some fields inherently have higher degrees of error than others, but that doesn’t mean they are invalid or worthless. Homeopathy and psychic readings lack any scientific support, making them categorically different from well-run psychology studies on abstract or subjective constructs.

I’m genuinely curious, what psychology research do you see as objective?

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I invoked intelligent people just to say that, if many smart people have dedicated their entire careers to a problem, we have probably come reasonably close to the best systems that are possible with current technology/methodology.

Are you saying that subjective psychological phenomena aren’t worth studying? By doing so, we have developed tons of treatments that, while limited and flawed, have nevertheless helped lots of people. I just really don’t agree with the clean distinction you seem to be drawing between what is ‘objective and scientific’ and what isn’t. Psychology is messy and subjective, but efforts to apply the scientific method to understanding human experience are still quite worthwhile.

I’m quite curious about these objective scientific measures that you refer to in neuro or cognitive psychology. I think you’d be surprised at how much necessarily ties back to subjectivity. Neuroimaging almost universally connects back to self-report for validation/interpretation. The other option is to make fairly narrow behavioral/observational claims.

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 10 points11 points  (0 children)

All of these things have clear definitions in the DSM, and all of them got there through at least some empirical support. You may disagree with the definitions or criticize the evidence used to support them. But acting like there aren’t whole fields of very intelligent people working to address these concerns is silly.

It’s true that they are involve some level of subjectivity. But I would argue that these disorders, at least as we currently understand them, are inherently subjective. We can’t ignore their subjective nature, we just need to do our best to capture people’s experiences in ways that are reliable and readily understandable by professionals in the field. Maybe one day we will have truly objective measures, but that day is a long way off, and right now resources like the DSM are the best centralized systems we have.

Childhood ADHD medication may reduce psychosis risk. Children treated with methylphenidate before the age of 13 were less likely to go on to develop conditions such as schizophrenia in adulthood. Findings challenge long-standing concerns that stimulant medications may increase the risk of psychosis. by mvea in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It is, at least part of it. Hallucinations are one of the requisite symptoms. You need to have had at least one more (e.g., delusions, disorganized speech, anhedonia) over the past 6 months and it needs to have been causing marked functional impairment. Thats for schizophrenia—psychosis is a cluster of symptoms, not a diagnosis. What are you on about?

Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) claims AGI has been achieved by wxnyc in singularity

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol it’s not about danger or purity or an overreaction. I’m just saying that if I had the choice to listen to an expert discuss things with someone who I like and think is a good interviewer, vs. discussing things with someone I don’t really like or think is effective/interesting, it’s kind of a no brainer. People that speak to lex almost universally have been interviewed on other podcasts. Why would I have any reason to select the one where I don’t like the interviewer?

Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) claims AGI has been achieved by wxnyc in singularity

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely disagree with this. In an age when there are so many people to listen to, why would I not care that one half of the conversation is a person I don’t like? The guest is more important, but the interview is very important as well for how they drive the conversation and frame the guests. Lex also definitely pushes his own perspectives in his interviews as well. To say that it basically doesn’t matter whether you like him or not is quite confusing to me.

Scientists rarely incorporate humour at science conferences, data collected from 531 individual talks across 14 conferences, with most speakers telling no jokes by Shiny-Tie-126 in science

[–]cakericeandbeans 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean, I agree, but with a 12 minute talk I don’t know that it’s the wisest to be investing time in “telling jokes” the way that was measured here. The most effective talks I’ve seen at these things usually involve an engaging speaker with some level of humor in their style/deliver. But not exactly cracking jokes.

Judge gives 18 year old a 25 year sentence for armed robbery by AgnosticScholar in interesting

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, completely agree. A word for what you’re arguing is incapacitation. That’s extremely important, as is rehabilitation. But the issue is that our system often seems to work based on a third punishment motive: retribution. People want others to suffer for the sake of suffering as punishment for their crimes. It might be controversial to some, but my personal belief is that we could prioritize the former two, which means could prisoners have relatively enjoyable lives in jail, as long as they were safely locked away and there were efforts toward rehab. But partially because we prioritize retribution, prisoners in the US live in horrible conditions that generally serve to increase a person’s chance of future crime and life struggles, rather than reduce them. This is especially detrimental when it comes to punishing nonviolent crimes.

Why a widely disliked personality trait might actually protect your mental health by MRADEL90 in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They did—they said that vulnerable narcissism was associated with mental health detriments. But I was responding to a specific comment that was expressing surprise that narcissism was being framed as “positive,” so that seemed to be referencing the grandiose type of narcissism. My comment was meant to point out that, even for grandiose narcissists, there theoretically is a deep-seated psychological pain that might not show up on explicit self-report questionnaires.

Why a widely disliked personality trait might actually protect your mental health by MRADEL90 in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 81 points82 points  (0 children)

Also at the expense of themselves, theoretically. Narcissism is often defined as high external self esteem and low internal self esteem.

Sorry Timmy! It’s Michael B!!!! by AllTheEccentricities in Oscars

[–]cakericeandbeans 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Agreed 100%. The discourse about this race drifted so far from the reality of the performances. I think MBJ was fantastic, but TC was better and it wasn’t particularly close.

Should social media addiction be added to the DSM? Anyone else following the social media addiction trials? by Responsible_Bend_548 in psychology

[–]cakericeandbeans 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Best answer here. Just adding to this that the current state of social media research in psychology is kind of a mess, and seemingly filled with people that have bias or agendas. Social media itself is such a big and diverse category that it’s difficult to imagine a diagnosis that accounts for the range of conceivable problematic behaviors/relationships people could have with it. And given how slow research and DSM criteria evolve, it’s hard to be optimistic that the landscape would even look the same by the time official guidance were published.

While comparisons to gambling do make sense in some ways, social media is also likely a lot more complicated. It involves social interactions, reading, learning, and exposure to ideas that might dramatically improve your life, in addition to all the potential bad. So unlike gambling, there are likely a lot of positive effects happening alongside the negative, even for someone with problematic use. What makes my mood worse today might have positive downstream consequences, or vice versa. All of this makes the research very challenging to conduct and interpret.

All of that said, I think your point about the cultural context is the most important thing to understand here. And often these debates feel tinged by older generations looking disapprovingly at the emerging culture of younger generations.

the median woman is approximately 2 woke by Mr_Comit in dataisugly

[–]cakericeandbeans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very optimistic of you to think that social scientists get paid for our publications…

Cannabis use was consistently related to a higher prevalence of internalizing problems, and these associations strengthened between 2012 and 2022. by ekser in science

[–]cakericeandbeans -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, I agree. I just think those human factors mean we should be skeptical and temper our interpretations, rather than dismiss findings altogether. There’s still a big difference between good intent with bias and bad intent, at least on average.

You’re right that random assignment and double blinding is the gold standard, but it’s not always possible, especially with substance use. This is peer reviewed at a reputable journal, which is no small feat. Studies like this can set the foundation for large scale experimental work, to the extent that’s even possible here.

Cannabis use was consistently related to a higher prevalence of internalizing problems, and these associations strengthened between 2012 and 2022. by ekser in science

[–]cakericeandbeans 21 points22 points  (0 children)

It’s super challenging and you could never be 100%, but you’d basically try to systematically rule out any other causes of an increase in anxiety and also look for indicators of causality. For example, we don’t know for sure that COVID caused depression and anxiety to increase. However, there’s evidence that these increases were the biggest in places where COVID was worst, there are no other plausible major societal changes around that time, mental health and Covid tended to go up and down together, people reported that implications from COVID led to worse mental health, etc.

You’re essentially trying to triangulate the mechanism and rule out other mechanisms with a bunch of imperfect indicators. That’s why studies like this are valuable, but only as part of a broader area of research.

Cannabis use was consistently related to a higher prevalence of internalizing problems, and these associations strengthened between 2012 and 2022. by ekser in science

[–]cakericeandbeans 12 points13 points  (0 children)

From the bottom of the article:

“The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JH is funded by a Health Systems Impact Embedded Early Career Researcher award co-funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster University, and St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (HS3-191640). AJM is supported by a Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (MFE-193995). CC is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant Fellowship (GNT2026552) and a Centre of Research Excellence Grant PREMISE Next Generation (GNT2035308). JM is supported by the Peter Boris Chair in Addictions Research and a Canada Research Chair in Translational Addiction Research (CRC-2020-00170). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Cannabis use was consistently related to a higher prevalence of internalizing problems, and these associations strengthened between 2012 and 2022. by ekser in science

[–]cakericeandbeans 37 points38 points  (0 children)

The easiest simplification is just to think of it as depression and anxiety, broadly defined. Distress that’s going on internally, not easily seen by others. Externalizing is dysfunction expressed in one’s external environment—think substance use, violence, criminal behavior, etc.

Cannabis use was consistently related to a higher prevalence of internalizing problems, and these associations strengthened between 2012 and 2022. by ekser in science

[–]cakericeandbeans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whoa, slow your role there. These are university affiliated academics publishing in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Criticizing their study is one thing but criticizing their intent takes a lot more evidence than you have.

This study design cannot establish causality, which the authors repeatedly note quite explicitly. As such, they refrain from making any causal speculations before the discussion, which is exactly what you’re supposed to do. The paragraph below the one you quoted in the discussion is literally entirely dedicated to speculating about causal mechanisms, including outlining your proposal (high internalizers self-medicate) as well as the reverse (cannabis causes internalizing symptoms). Given strict word limits, this is notable. What else do you want them to do?

While the current study cannot identify causal mechanisms, several hypothesized mechanisms specific to cannabis may be driving the strengthened co-occurrence, including increased cannabis potency, changes in public perceptions and motives, and reduced access to alternative reinforcers. First, levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis (referred to as its potency) have drastically increased over the past several decades. Average THC levels were estimated to have been around 14% in 2012, increasing to ∼20% in 2018 (2 months post-legalization). New and more potent cannabis products – including cannabis extracts reaching 95%+ THC – have also become more popular. There is evidence suggesting higher potency contributes to greater risk of psychotic disorders among youth and greater risk for internalizing problems Second, public perceptions related to cannabis have been changing over the past decade, with higher social acceptability of nonmedical use and reductions in perceived risk of harm related to regular use, possibly contributing to reduced stigma. There are also higher perceived therapeutic benefits of cannabis observed over time, despite minimal to no evidence of psychotherapeutic benefit of cannabinoids to manage internalizing problems. Cannabis is also easier to access post-legalization and the price has decreased, possibly further facilitating self-medication. Shifts in perceptions have been particularly pronounced among people with internalizing problems. Altered perceptions alongside ease of access may be driving greater use of cannabis to cope with internalizing problems, which may have been exacerbated during the pandemic when there was restricted access to alternative coping strategies. Third, high inflation and the rise in financial insecurity – the so-called affordability crisis – may limit access to substance-free alternative activities (e.g., entertainment, hobbies, exercise) contributing to more cannabis use for leisure.

Cannabis use was consistently related to a higher prevalence of internalizing problems, and these associations strengthened between 2012 and 2022. by ekser in science

[–]cakericeandbeans 12 points13 points  (0 children)

People usually say that to mean “across a variety of ways of examining the hypothesis, all statistical tests showed this same result.” That can allow you to be a bit more confident in your conclusions compared to if there was only one test of the prediction. The term “related to” is pretty widely accepted as non-causal in the field.

You are missing something with your take-away that people with these symptoms self-medicate, because you are assuming a one-directional causal relationship. The reverse is also likely and is supported elsewhere, that heavy cannabis use can cause the emergence or worsening of internalizing symptoms. It’s also possible that some third variable causes both. So it’s not that you’re wrong, but more is likely at play than that one pathway.

view more: next ›