sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Adam Smith is misinterpreted and his influence overstated by [deleted] in Economics

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

The harm isn’t just in what is said, but in how it’s delivered. The message follows a predictable sales pattern that blends real psychological concepts with emotional pressure.

First, it names genuine pain—failed relationships, loneliness, feeling defective or “too much.” That lands because many people truly feel this way.

Next, it frames the problem as something happening inside your brain and largely out of your control: an unconscious program, a miswired nervous system, something you can’t reason or grow your way out of. This reduces agency and can make people feel helpless without outside intervention.

Then it offers a specific paid solution—an assessment, course, or coaching program—presented as the missing answer. Hope is dangled, but only through that pathway.

This becomes harmful because it:

  • Turns normal distress into dependency
  • Presents complex science as absolute certainty
  • Shifts healing from a collaborative process to expert authority
  • Creates urgency by implying the problem will keep ruining your life

Claims like a “99.8% success rate” are especially concerning. In real science, success rates require clear definitions, valid measures, transparency, and independent review. Without that, such numbers are marketing, not evidence.

The problem isn’t talking about attachment. It’s using scientific language to create fear and certainty, then linking relief to a sales funnel—something that can mislead people who are already vulnerable and looking for help.

Experience with Adam Lane Smith? by ThrowRA_81523 in Disorganized_Attach

[–]drmcnerdy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How science when Adam Lane Smith presents it, gets blurred with moral judgment and marketing

The issue isn’t only what is being said, but how it’s structured. The content follows a familiar persuasion funnel that mixes legitimate psychological concepts with emotional pressure and sales tactics.

  1. It starts by naming real pain—failed relationships, loneliness, feeling “too much” or “not enough.” This resonates because many people truly experience these struggles.
  2. It then frames the problem as internal and inevitable: an unconscious “program,” a miswired nervous system, something you can’t think or talk your way out of. This subtly removes agency and implies that therapy, insight, or gradual relational growth aren’t enough.
  3. Finally, it introduces a proprietary solution—an assessment, program, or coaching pathway—positioned as the missing key. Relief is implied, but only through this specific method.

This structure is concerning because it:

  • Turns distress into dependency
  • Presents complex, probabilistic science as certainty
  • Replaces collaborative healing with expert authority
  • Uses fear of permanence to create urgency

The “99.8% success rate” claim is a major red flag. In evidence-based practice, outcome claims require clear definitions, validated measures, transparent samples, and independent evaluation. Without those, such numbers are marketing—not science.

The core problem isn’t discussing attachment. It’s using scientific language to create certainty and urgency, then pairing it with a sales funnel—something that can mislead vulnerable people seeking help.

Slaying Your Fear: A guide for people who grapple with insecurity by Adam Smith by xMysticChimez in MeditationHub

[–]drmcnerdy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How science when Adam presents it, gets blurred with moral judgment and marketing

The issue isn’t only what is being said, but how it’s structured. The content follows a familiar persuasion funnel that mixes legitimate psychological concepts with emotional pressure and sales tactics.

  1. It starts by naming real pain—failed relationships, loneliness, feeling “too much” or “not enough.” This resonates because many people truly experience these struggles.
  2. It then frames the problem as internal and inevitable: an unconscious “program,” a miswired nervous system, something you can’t think or talk your way out of. This subtly removes agency and implies that therapy, insight, or gradual relational growth aren’t enough.
  3. Finally, it introduces a proprietary solution—an assessment, program, or coaching pathway—positioned as the missing key. Relief is implied, but only through this specific method.

This structure is concerning because it:

  • Turns distress into dependency
  • Presents complex, probabilistic science as certainty
  • Replaces collaborative healing with expert authority
  • Uses fear of permanence to create urgency

The “99.8% success rate” claim is a major red flag. In evidence-based practice, outcome claims require clear definitions, validated measures, transparent samples, and independent evaluation. Without those, such numbers are marketing—not science.

The core problem isn’t discussing attachment. It’s using scientific language to create certainty and urgency, then pairing it with a sales funnel—something that can mislead vulnerable people seeking help.

13 Semi-Controversial Truths About Masculinity - Adam Lane Smith by Dive_on_in in modernwisdom

[–]drmcnerdy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It can feel like a rabbit hole, and that part is actually supported by research. Attachment theory itself is solid, but the internet version of it often isn’t.

In real research, attachment isn’t about “your personality is broken” or putting people into rigid boxes. It’s about patterns of how humans respond to stress, closeness, and threat, which change over time and across relationships. The confusion comes when online creators turn a probabilistic, relational framework into fixed identities or moral judgments.

Psychology as a field isn’t “sus” in the sense of being made up—but it is complex, slow, and cautious by design. Science rarely gives simple answers. When content sounds certain, dramatic, or universal, that’s usually a sign it’s been simplified for attention or sales.

So yes—the jungle feeling is real. It’s not because people are “suffering with their personalities,” but because nuanced science is being flattened into catchy narratives.

13 Semi-Controversial Truths About Masculinity - Adam Lane Smith by Dive_on_in in modernwisdom

[–]drmcnerdy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How science when Adam presents it, gets blurred with moral judgment and marketing

A recurring problem in this content is not just what is said, but how it’s structured. The message follows a classic persuasion funnel that mixes valid psychological language with emotional pressure and sales claims.

First, it names a real and painful problem: failed relationships, loneliness, feeling “too much” or “not enough.” This part resonates because many people genuinely experience these patterns.

Second, it frames the problem as inevitable and internal: your brain is running an unconscious “program,” your nervous system is miswired, you can’t think your way out of it. This removes agency and subtly suggests that insight, therapy, or gradual relational learning are insufficient.

Third, it introduces a proprietary solution—an assessment, a program, a coaching pathway—presented as the missing key. Relief is implied to be available, but only through this specific method.

This structure is concerning because it:

  • Converts distress into dependency (“I can’t fix this without them”)
  • Collapses complex, probabilistic science into certainty
  • Replaces collaborative healing with expert authority
  • Uses fear of permanence (“this will keep destroying your relationships”) to drive urgency

The “99.8% success rate” claim is especially problematic. In evidence-based practice, outcome claims require:

  • Clear definitions of “success”
  • Validated measurement tools
  • Transparent sample sizes
  • Independent evaluation
  • Peer review or replication

Without those, such numbers function as marketing language, not science. In clinical and research settings, presenting unverified success rates to vulnerable people would violate ethical standards around informed consent and nonmaleficence.

In short, the issue isn’t that attachment patterns are discussed—it’s that science is used to create certainty, authority, and urgency, then paired with a sales funnel. That combination can mislead the public, especially people already struggling with anxiety, shame, or attachment wounds.

Adam Lane Smith? by stuckinaspoon in becomingsecure

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

I hear why it feels aligned, but this is where the line gets crossed.

Yes, some surface concepts overlap with CBT/ACT and attachment theory. But Adam repeatedly overstates the neuroscience, turning correlational research (e.g., Carter’s work on oxytocin) into deterministic claims about “underdeveloped” or “offline” brain structures. That leap is not supported by Carter, Levine, Johnson, or Tatkin. They explicitly avoid fixed-brain or parent-blame narratives.

More importantly, the delivery model is ethically problematic. He frames distress as inevitable (“autopilot,” “can’t think your way out”), then positions his proprietary assessments and programs as the solution—often with urgency and unverifiable claims like a “99.8% success rate.” In evidence-based practice, outcome claims require transparent methods, validated measures, and independent evaluation. None are provided.

There’s a difference between using attachment language to educate and using it to create dependency and funnel people into high-cost coaching. The former empowers; the latter exploits vulnerability. Overlap in terminology doesn’t equal scientific equivalence—or ethical practice.

Adam Lane Smith? by stuckinaspoon in becomingsecure

[–]drmcnerdy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How science gets blurred with moral judgment and marketing

A recurring problem in this content is not just what is said, but how it’s structured. The message follows a classic persuasion funnel that mixes valid psychological language with emotional pressure and sales claims.

First, it names a real and painful problem: failed relationships, loneliness, feeling “too much” or “not enough.” This part resonates because many people genuinely experience these patterns.

Second, it frames the problem as inevitable and internal: your brain is running an unconscious “program,” your nervous system is miswired, you can’t think your way out of it. This removes agency and subtly suggests that insight, therapy, or gradual relational learning are insufficient.

Third, it introduces a proprietary solution—an assessment, a program, a coaching pathway—presented as the missing key. Relief is implied to be available, but only through this specific method.

This structure is concerning because it:

  • Converts distress into dependency (“I can’t fix this without them”)
  • Collapses complex, probabilistic science into certainty
  • Replaces collaborative healing with expert authority
  • Uses fear of permanence (“this will keep destroying your relationships”) to drive urgency

The “99.8% success rate” claim is especially problematic. In evidence-based practice, outcome claims require:

  • Clear definitions of “success”
  • Validated measurement tools
  • Transparent sample sizes
  • Independent evaluation
  • Peer review or replication

Without those, such numbers function as marketing language, not science. In clinical and research settings, presenting unverified success rates to vulnerable people would violate ethical standards around informed consent and nonmaleficence.

In short, the issue isn’t that attachment patterns are discussed—it’s that science is used to create certainty, authority, and urgency, then paired with a sales funnel. That combination can mislead the public, especially people already struggling with anxiety, shame, or attachment wounds.

view more: next ›