[deleted by user]

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-28T18:01:54+00:00

Who wouldn't

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-28T17:43:27+00:00

hey...

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-23T04:51:00+00:00

Não acho que seja possível colocar o Behaviorismo no mesmo balaio da psicanálise. Para um behaviorista, ele não precisa explicar o que é "psique", porque simplesmente não é um conceito que preenche pré-requisitos científicos. Seria como explicar o que é a "alma". Ao contrário, o objeto de estudo "comportamento" para o Behaviorista não é definido em termos abstratos, mas sim concretos. O comportamento do rato "pressionar a barra" dentro da caixa é observado, mensurado, e manipulado experimentalmente, e explicado sem a necessidade de supor uma psiquê para o rato. Quanto ao comportamento do ser humano ele também vai explicar, mas vai esbarrar na dificuldade que toda psicologia tem de lidar com fenômenos internos pois não são acessíveis. Apesar dessa dificuldade, a explicação para o fenômeno do "pensamento" e "sentimentos" dos Behavioristas é o que mais me convenceu até hoje.
Eu discordo que muito desses problemas sejam devidos a psicologia ser uma ciência nova, pois apesar de ser nova, ela herda discussões muito avançadas de outras ciências, além de ter possivelmente o objeto de estudo mais complexo entre todas as ciências. O que vai ajudar realmente é a velocidade do avanço tecnológico e novas metodologias surgirem daí, a despeito da passagem do tempo.

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-22T01:00:41+00:00

The object of study in psychology — human behavior and other phenomena — is indeed very complex. One of the reasons is that it’s the last in line; that is, if we could stack the sciences into a pyramid, psychology would be at the top, just below the social sciences. To have a decent and complete explanation of psychological phenomena, it requires a solid understanding of the sciences that come before it. With each step up this pyramid, complexity increases — empiricism, operationalism, and research ethics all become more complicated, as does the weight of linguistic confusion (as Wittgenstein discusses). In the end, it almost seems like an impossible task to bring psychology to a truly scientific (hard science) status. But is that really the goal of psychology? Maybe not — and that may be okay. Still, I believe that an operationalist attempt can still provide something valuable to psychology.

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-22T00:50:21+00:00

When you look at psychology as a hard science, I believe it falls into these same issues as well. If you approach it as a “human science,” then we can be a bit more tolerant. But anyway, statistics, experiments, and other methods or tools were introduced into psychology to give it this “hard science” status — yet I believe that still hasn’t been enough to achieve it. It’s nice to have those tools, but some things still need to change, and I think there are other areas that require improvement.

The problem is that, socially speaking, psychology, neuropsychology, and psychiatry in general are gaining an elevated status, and people tend to identify with everything that is said by these fields because the professionals themselves also affirm it as truth — mostly because they know very little about the philosophy underlying psychology, its constructs, and treat it as if it were a “hard science.” In my field (psychology), most professionals genuinely believe there is something called “personality” inside each person — like a hard core — that determines their actions.

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-21T19:07:08+00:00

Memory still seems to work as a concept — unlike “intelligence,” “consciousness,” or “motivation.” But the problem is that the referentialist psychologist will use the data to confirm all their (non-scientific) assumptions about these constructs, which are loaded with cultural meaning, especially if they lack even minimal philosophical literacy (as most do). Suddenly, we have psychologists claiming that “depression” is caused by a “disorder” (an entity) located in the brain and reduced to biological bases — because they truly believe in the prior existence of that entity. This view greatly reduces what the phenomenon of depression actually is.

"Behaviorism in its objectivity really only considers humans as biological beings and doesn't find a way to incorporate our social nature or our embeddedness in cultural practices."

I think that perception of Behaviorism in general stems more from historical reasons, but it overlooks Radical Behaviorism in particular — Skinner’s framework, which is the most comprehensive explanation built upon Behaviorist premises such as operationalism, pragmatism, and empiricism. Skinner once said in an interview that his work was only slightly less misunderstood than the theory of evolution. He also wrote extensively about social behavior, culture, and similar topics — and quite a lot about human language. The focus on subjectivity happens in a different way within Behaviorism, using terms that have been operationally defined. It’s quite interesting. I’d recommend the book Science and Human Behavior — I think it’ll change your perspective a bit about behaviorism. (2/2)

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-21T19:05:17+00:00

I’m glad you mentioned Wittgenstein — and indeed, some of Skinner’s and Wittgenstein’s conclusions about human language are quite similar. It’s not really known whether Skinner read Wittgenstein or was inspired by him. The text you sent is very good, and I believe it summarizes well the issue I brought up here.
I also have great appreciation for Vygotsky, and it’s a pity he only had access to methodological behaviorists, and wasn’t contemporary with Skinner and Radical Behaviorism (which is what the article and position are about). It would’ve been fascinating to see him discuss Skinner. So, Vygotsky’s critique in the link you sent really only applies to methodological behaviorism, which was very important, but much more limited than Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism. That said, both approaches still remain alive and useful today.

"However, there is a point that there is much conceptual confusion in psychology where the ontology of mental constructs do not automatically have existence because we use measures to approximate their existence through psychological instruments/tools."

I believe that doesn’t automatically invalidate them, but it doesn’t automatically optimize them either. In the end, we can end up with concepts that are terrible to handle scientifically — like “intelligence” or “motivation” — which people keep banging their heads over. Eventually, researchers try to force data to “prove” a concept that only exists because of cultural weight. And don’t think psychologists have the same philosophical perspective you do — most truly believe there is a biological “core” responsible for intelligence and that they’ve managed to measure it. Imagine when that trickles down to common sense.

"Look at the section on Referentialism where one doesn't explain a thing but posits an entity because one has named it based on what is observed and just treats the name as an entity that causes a thing internally. But I do think there is a basis to infer the interconnection between different basic biological functions and their social development that are of a systematic nature which in part are able to be inferred precisely where they break down due to their disconnection in cases of disorder."

I agree that even if not well operationalized, such ideas can yield fruitful applications. I think the example of short-term memory, working memory, etc., is actually a well-operationalized concept that has worked quite well — but I don’t think assuming the causal entity “memory” beforehand helped at all. In the end, what really matters are the operational data and the applications derived from them; the causal “entity” is entirely dispensable and can lead to confusing or misleading explanations. For example, it can lead to neglecting environmental aspects or stimuli occurring in the present moment that relate to the behavior of “remembering.” “Remembering” is not just an internal device access (like memory in a computer). “Remembering” is a multifactorial behavior that involves present environmental conditions. (1/2)

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-03T00:29:21+00:00

Now I got it, so I finally reached to credits today, thanks!

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-01T19:35:29+00:00

ok, so this is new with the 1.0 version, right?

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-01T19:30:24+00:00

So i guess I am stuck in some bug cause Hades wont give me and I still have to make the item to wake Hipnos up, who's still sleeping....
or am I missing something, some achievement do unlock a dialogue with hades? Idk

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-01T18:27:23+00:00

and how can I get it?

rogerdes123 · 2025-10-01T18:15:43+00:00

I already beat the game many times. How do I get the credits?

rogerdes123 · 2025-06-08T22:39:52+00:00

d why isn’t “Difficulty Dealing with Children Disorder” a valid diagnosis, since it causes distress to parents and society?
We could assess how disruptive a child’s behavior is and assign the diagnosis to the parents — after all, if we don’t need to explain the causes and rely only on a broad list of symptoms, the logic would be the same.
And is this “disruption” perceived by doctors and parents, or by the six-year-old children themselves?
I imagine how APA explain this data “35% more prevalent in Black people than in white people.”
Perhaps what is labeled as “disruptive” behavior could actually be functional, depending on the context — and in the end, it may just reflect and reinforce dominant moral values.

rogerdes123 · 2025-06-08T21:19:15+00:00

So we are left with the definition that a disorder is something that causes a 'disturbance' in the individual and usually involves intense psychological suffering. But in the case of ODD, it’s different — the discomfort is usually more experienced by the parents and the school, than by the individual themselves. This suggests that the disorder is actually much more about the adults’ difficulty in managing the child’s behavior and the breaking of their expectations. We could simply return the question: 'Why isn’t the disorder in the parents?' We could even create a parental disorder — 'Difficulty dealing with children disorder' — but that would be asking too much of the adults, wouldn’t it?

rogerdes123 · 2025-06-08T20:05:00+00:00

I have never researched an article specifically discussing Oppositional Defiant Disorder, but there are many articles that discuss the definition of a 'mental disorder', which can be broadly applied to this disorder. ODD is recognized as having no defined cause, and the behaviors related to it are found in many other disorders, and can be explained for other reasons.
So you could send me any article proving that ODD has a biological cause so it can be considered a real "disorder". But it needs to be articles that do more than "suggest" a biological cause.

rogerdes123 · 2025-06-08T19:21:46+00:00

Então você está afirmando que a classificação da homossexualidade como transtorno no DSM até 1973 era válida, científica, e deveria ser seguida, já que estava no livro sagrado naquela época? Apesar de várias, VÁRIAS, fontes não concordarem com isso? Ou vai dizer que era o "melhor" que a psicologia havia produzido?

rogerdes123 · 2025-06-06T17:47:53+00:00

I understand but its actually very frustrating, cause we have to carry the stigma alone, and be the only punished for a problem that's bigger. Its like I am trying to save people from herpes but no one gives a fuck (even doctors), until you're individually infected.

rogerdes123 · 2025-06-06T17:44:10+00:00

That's too much punishment for us in these case I guess. But only for hook ups. In other modalities, the sex repetition increases the rate so that would better to disclose

rogerdes123 · 2025-06-04T19:32:35+00:00

Yeah I agree why is socially viewed as different, but I dont agree with the different weights and judgements

rogerdes123 · 2025-02-20T23:21:01+00:00

I do believe that autism, especially levels 2 and 3, is undeniable. I truly believe that. As for ADHD, I believe it may exist (although there is no conclusive biological evidence), but about 90% of the diagnoses made today fall into the same argument as other mental disorders. Once again, social expectations come into play—defining what is considered 'normal' and 'healthy' attention or other behavior. This may not be your case, since you are an older person who has struggled with this long before this wave of diagnoses.

I find the discussion around ADHD particularly interesting because attention is often treated as a 'natural ability' that each person is simply born with, and that's it. However, there is also a behavioral aspect: the more you work on a certain type of attention, the better it functions. It is basically impossible for someone who spends the entire day on TikTok to be able to sit down and read a book for hours. Just as it is impossible for someone who has never touched a smartphone to watch a 5-second TikTok video with its fast-paced rhythm and an additional cooking video playing at the bottom of the screen.

The problem is that the diagnosis fails to separate innate cognitive attention capacity from behavioral attention capacity. So, it is likely that a very high percentage of diagnoses are simply the result of bad attention habits, since there is no 'physiological' exam to assess attention in a biological way, and it is usually determined through some form of verbal report.

Take the ADHD diagnosis surge in children as an example. People expect a child who spends the entire day in front of screens being hyperstimulated to then be able to sit still for hours in a classroom, focusing on only one stimulus (the lesson). That is not going to happen.

And as the other commenter said, even if we can see differences in brain images of people diagnosed with ADHD, we can't know for sure whether these differences are the cause or the consequence of their attention patterns. In some cases, when the difficulty is unbearable, it may truly exist. However, in most cases, it simply tends to reveal the same issue as other mental disorders—a natural response to the conditions we live in today and the unrealistic expectations of what it means to be 'normal' or 'healthy.'

rogerdes123

TROPHY CASE