Rejection of science and/or factual information in favor of feelings

[Mijin]

@scudsucker

Not exactly a double blind study, though it was peer reviewed! The scientific method is probably the greatest thing that has become possible for humanity since we (allegorically) came down from the trees.

Right. Intelligence is our species’ superpower, but, being the product of natural selection, our instincts include all kinds of cognitive biases, blind spots and bad habits.
The scientific method – the formalization of applying reasoning to understand nature – allows us to supercharge our powers and the results have been astounding.

Sad that we’re regressing now.

It’s why I think it may be necessary for a certain empire (that I won’t name here, lest it become the same topic as other threads) to collapse.

[bump]

@Spice_Weasel

I think a lot though, about how much our social context reinforces our beliefs. The higher the social consequence for believing something else, the less likely people are to consider other viewpoints. And I was thinking today, this is probably how MAGA happened. People at this point are so socially mired in these hyper-political social circles that they would literally lose everything they cared about, everything that gives their life meaning, if they started considering alternative viewpoints. I’ve seen it happen with people leaving their church, I’ve seen it happen with people leaving the Mormon community, it’s just extremely onerous for some people to believe or not believe certain things. We can condemn them, I guess, but I’m more inclined to point the finger at people who should damned well know better.

Absolutely. I happen to know a couple whose daughter transitioned from being male in the recent past. They live out in the sticks in a very conservative area, and lost lifetime friends (were they really friends, I suppose?) and their standing in their church and community for standing by their daughter. And it pains them greatly. Less than forsaking their child would have, but it’s still painful for them to be treated so by people they thought had their backs and loved them.

I can totally see other people seeing this play out and deciding that they don’t want to be shunned/outcast, or that maybe this particular ideology isn’t so bad, and maybe their own kid doesn’t have their head screwed on straight as a result. It’s shitty, but at the same time, I think expecting everyone to be brave and to stand up and do the right thing isn’t realistic either. Lots of people are going to stick with what’s comfortable, and what makes their lives easier, or what paves the way for their kids’ success.

It’s the people in the church/community that missed the memo; they ought to be much more forgiving and accepting of these long-time residents and “friends” of theirs instead of demanding they act a certain way and then shunning them when they don’t.

[Voyager]

@bump

It’s the people in the church/community that missed the memo; they ought to be much more forgiving and accepting of these long-time residents and “friends” of theirs instead of demanding they act a certain way and then shunning them when they don’t.

That’s a heart wrenching story, but are you sure the church people missed the memo? One big problem with religion, not just crazy religion, is that you think you have a conduit to what the creator of the universe thinks is moral. It’s not like secular people can’t be bigots also, but if they were the slightest bit honest they’d have to admit that they might be wrong, and changing their views wouldn’t be a wrenching change to the worldview.
And I freely admit that there are plenty of religious people who adopt their beliefs so as not to be bigots. Religion gives cover for those who don’t.

[bump]

I’d argue that it’s “love the sinner, hate the sin” in this case. And shunning the parents because they love their child and don’t forsake them seems… judgmental to say the least. And it’s doubly weird, because these people are actually very conservative Catholics. Like think Vatican II is new and suspicious, and preach that unbaptized babies go to Hell kind of old school conservative Catholics. What they’re doing isn’t in line with the Catholic doctrine at all.

I also feel like a whole lot (if not all) of modern evangelical Christians have entirely missed the point of Christ’s teachings, in that the whole thing wasn’t about making the community sinless and castigating those who are sinful, it’s about that struggle within yourself because everyone sins, and along with that, since everyone sins, forgiveness and toleration is the overarching message, not something more harsh and legalistic.

I’m not the only one…
(from here…)

Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”

“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”

[Miller]

@bump

What they’re doing isn’t in line with the Catholic doctrine at all.

Sounds like sedavacanists.

[bump]

It does, but they’re not heretical. Just extremely conservative religiously. They’d probably prefer mass be said in Latin, I’d guess. They were brought up old school, very rural Catholics of German ancestry in Iowa.

[Irishman]

@Spice_Weasel

After twenty years undergoing treatment in the field of psychology, trying to stay aligned with the current research and keeping track of current trends, I am confident in saying that one of the foremost peddlers of magical thinking and unsupported bullshit are mental health therapists treating people for trauma.

I had to double check what you are talking about, but to the extent anyone is still doing psychotherapy or psychanalysis, they are practicing woo.

I have no problem with introspection to gain self-understanding, but the practices used like dream analysis and free association and inkblots are all astrology. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and rational techniques focus on practical applied behaviors.

[bump]

@Irishman

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and rational techniques focus on practical applied behaviors.

Yeah, there’s no magical anything there; it’s about “When you think this, be aware of it in the moment, and rationally assess what you’re thinking and why.”

So if you are anxious about something and worrying about specific negative outcomes, realize it, analyze it, and consider that the worst-case scenario rarely happens. Usually it’s something far less terrible.

Or getting down on yourself for things you should have done. Reframing that as things you “wish” you’d done changes it from being a black/white, pass/fail retrospective thought into something less stark.

Now stuff like “sitting in your feelings” seems a lot more woo-ish to me.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Irishman

I had to double check what you are talking about, but to the extent anyone is still doing psychotherapy or psychanalysis, they are practicing woo.

I have no problem with introspection to gain self-understanding, but the practices used like dream analysis and free association and inkblots are all astrology. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and rational techniques focus on practical applied behaviors.

“Psychotherapy” means any kind of therapeutic technique, including CBT. It’s a neutral term to indicate any kind of mental health therapy.

Psychoanalysis was created by Freud and yes, is woo. We are on the same page there. It gave birth to the field of psychodynamic therapy which I do not consider an evidence based intervention. I did six years of it in college because I didn’t really have a critical understanding of mental health interventions at the time and it was a waste of my time when I was in extreme crisis. I could not attend school, I could not hold down a job, I could not bathe myself, I barely ate anything, I was in very bad condition, for years, and in this context I was encouraged to do a deep dive into a lifetime of trauma. While I adored my therapist, I also felt betrayed when I discovered the truth. Six years of my life I will never get back, and could have been some of the best years because I loved college when I wasn’t in absolute despair.

It wasn’t even just that their modality wasn’t evidence based, it’s that I was actively discouraged by my therapist from doing anything like CBT. I was told it wasn’t appropriate for complex trauma, which is a lie. I eventually left and did start CBT because my husband (then boyfriend) begged me to do “anything evidence based” and I did and it changed my life. Because of CBT and host of other evidence-based interventions, I was able to go back to school and eventually get a Masters degree.

I’m saying this to underscore the fact that when people practice forms of therapy that are not evidence based, they may be causing irreversible harm.

[Irishman]

@Spice_Weasel

Psychotherapy” means any kind of therapeutic technique, including CBT. It’s a neutral term to indicate any kind of mental health therapy.

Oops, you are correct.

[Spice_Weasel]

@bump

Now stuff like “sitting in your feelings” seems a lot more woo-ish to me.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by that. Rumination has been identified as a key driver of depression and anxiety, so rumination bad. But practices of mindfulness, meditation, sort of letting your feelings be without getting too attached to them, that stuff is very evidence-based. Both DBT and ACT use some form of mindfulness. I love me some ACT.

I’ll mention the fact that meditation is not indicated for everyone. It can backfire for a subset of the population, but the research on this is slim, and there are so many different ways to meditate we can’t even say which ones are potentially problematic. But that is the kind of thing that seems to happen for some people after days of meditation. So don’t book any seven day retreats if you have a history of psychosis.

[Jackmannii]

@Spice_Weasel

But practices of mindfulness, meditation, sort of letting your feelings be without getting too attached to them, that stuff is very evidence-based.

“Very evidence-based” might be overdoing it.

[Spice_Weasel]

Oh, I am so interested in this. Thank you!

DBT and ACT are very evidence-based using the randomized controlled trial standard, and both use mindfulness concepts, but I don’t know that anyone’s ever picked them apart enough to identify the mindfulness part as necessary to the treatment. ACT (which I have done) also has a technique called defusion where you practice not attaching to your thoughts. That’s pretty Buddhist, though in ACT it’s done in a playful cognitive way, not through meditation. So for example, imagining your anxiety as a creature outside yourself, giving it shape and form, making it big and hairy and purple or whatever. You are also encouraged to create your own defusion techniques. One that I made up is that whenever I find myself having a negative thought spiral, I imagine the thoughts being sung by the singing vegetables from The Muppet Show. It’s ridiculous, but that’s the point. They are just thoughts.

Yet it’s hard to find any therapy these days, evidence-based or not, that doesn’t integrate mindfulness in some way. I have a real hard time with EMDR’s insistence that you report what’s happening in your body - it feels invasive and completely unnecessary. (Don’t recall if I mentioned polyvagal theory, but it’s all the rage right now in trauma intervention, despite the fact it is based on a neuroscience theory that is demonstrably false.)

I wish I could recall where I heard the quote, but it was something like, “It’s a pity that the key concept Western Buddhism took from the East was mindfulness and not renunciation.”

As a Zen practitioner I’ve grown curious about the implications of stripping these practices from their cultural and ethical context and using them to form psychological treatments. At least in part because “mindfulness” has really caught on in the tech-bro culture and it’s essentially being used by CEOs to make the work of exploiting others less stressful. It’s become a self-help thing. And it’s become a way to create complacent workers.

Also, I’m not entirely convinced Zen meditation and mindfulness are the same thing. Even ‘‘meditation’’ is such a broad category of practices, where do you begin?

All I can say is the profound relief I feel when I go to service every Sunday and sit down and every week it’s the same ‘‘aha’’ moment - all this stuff I’ve been stressing myself out about, it’s just bullshit. It’s a fiction of my own creation. To be able to let that go, and to find ways throughout the week to let that go, is really powerful. But that’s after a year of near daily meditation, not six weeks or whatever a study’s duration may be. It’s also anecdotal.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Spice_Weasel

I wish I could recall where I heard the quote, but it was something like, “It’s a pity that the key concept Western Buddhism took from the East was mindfulness and not renunciation.”

Maybe you should let that go.

[Spice_Weasel]

I know you’re joking, but that quote stuck with me because non-attachment is foundational to Buddhism, and that includes non-attachment to things, to certain pleasure states, even to people. Think about how much harm comes from greed.

I think in the US we’d be farther along in human flourishing if people could let at least some of that materialist shit go. In a less greedy society, there would be less reason to go to therapy in the first place. But that view is fundamentally opposed to American cultural values.

Mindfulness goes down much easier.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Spice_Weasel

I know you’re joking, but

I’m not joking. You talk about how ”we’d be farther along in human flourishing” — and you ask that people “think about how much harm comes from greed” — and, unless I’m misreading you, you seem, uh, desirous of one outcome over another.

[Spice_Weasel]

Sure I am! But my sense of well-being is not dependent on anyone agreeing with me. Or at least, not as dependent as it once was. And I think that’s a significant difference. For most people, it’s simply impossible to ever reach a state of having no opinions or preferences, but there’s a kind of softening or worldview shift that makes things easier, where you can see your opinion as your opinion rather than this carefully guarded thing you must protect at all costs (speaking for myself, here) and people as just doing their people thing. I guess the difference is in the intensity of what I feel. I don’t feel most things as strongly as I used to, especially things like anger and outrage. Not sure how else to put it.

But this is kind of what I mean by things being stripped of their context. The other piece of this is compassion, which in a Buddhist worldview extends naturally from seeing how interrelated we all are. Then what you do is in line with causing the least harm possible. Some people interpret this as doing nothing, being careful not to make things worse – but there are other people, like the late peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh and his Plum Village folks, who view social justice action as an ethical imperative. You will find this kind of diversity of thought in all major religions.

Because this is a religion. It’s a practice and it’s also a belief system. It may be supported by some scientific observations, but the point of it was never to make a scientific claim. It was to structure society in specific way, around a core set of beliefs and practices. Zen itself borrowed heavily from Daoism and Confuscianism in order to appeal to the Chinese, at which point, it exploded. Western Buddhism came with its own sales pitch in the early 1900s, and it came with a number of practitioners who decided it would be usefully applied in psychotherapy. It appears to be a damned sight more useful than Freudian psychology, but if there’s something better - by all means, let’s do that.

I’m an existentialist and a pragmatist. Outside of the scientific framework I’m not sure there can be any objective truth. But there can be ideas and systems that work better than others. I like this one for me.

[Spice_Weasel]

I should add: my understanding is that the influence that Buddhism has had on psychotherapy came largely from Theravadan Buddhist practitioners, not Zen ones. All of the famous psychologist Buddhists I’m aware of are Theravadan Buddhists.

I really don’t know much about Theravadan Buddhism. It hews more closely to the Buddhism originally practiced in India (Zen, by contrast, sprang up in China hundreds of years later) and they do a lot of something called insight meditation and I don’t really know what that is. For all I know their concept of mindfulness is completely different from the Zen focus on present moment. I’ve found some of it useful but it’s not really what I’m into. It seems to fit very nicely with modern Western psychological imperatives to “look inward.”

[Ulfreida]

Just to talk about the Boutique Dogfood Industry which I do know a little bit about …
there’s a few data points to consider. One, dogs apparently do rather poorly on corn middlings and soybean hulls. They are low food-value by weight. They make up the bulk of most supermarket dog food brand contents because they are cheap byproducts that can be listed as protein sources but the total digestible nutrients are low. People observe that the first thing that happens when they switch to a premium kibble is the size and frequency of the dog’s poops goes way down. Feeding higher quality protein sources means your dog doesn’t have to eat a lot of indigestible filler.

Then there’s the allergy thing. People imagine that corn and soy are allergens, although any vet will tell you that the main things dogs are allergic to in food are meat proteins, particularly beef. The whole ‘single protein’ fad came about because of medical diets meant to narrow down exactly which protein/s a dog is reacting to. Then it just snowballed.

The trouble with dogfood is the trouble with everything – why trust commercial kibble manufacturers when it’s obvious that they are trying to use the cheapest ingredients they can get away with, because capitalism. But who CAN you trust? The USDA is arm and arm with the corn and soybean industries. This is where the boutique dogfood companies insert themselves with their appeals to ‘common sense’ – dogs should eat food as good as our own and what do we like best? Meat. Dogs are really wolves, what do wolves eat? Meat. And maybe some green and yellow vegetables! There’s even fruit in some formulas.

You may mock, but when everything is marketing, including science funded by global ag industries, it is really hard for an average person to know what to do.

Of course, dogs evolved to live off camp garbage and human waste, but that’s one of truths about dog food that no one embraces.

[Ulfreida]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

You talk about how ”we’d be farther along in human flourishing” — and you ask that people “think about how much harm comes from greed” — and, unless I’m misreading you, you seem, uh, desirous of one outcome over another.

Nobody said Buddhism was easy.