bassist_25 wrote:1. Nothing is ever "proven" in science, especially behavioral sciences. Things are only statistically significant insofar as they support theoretical hypotheses in that findings are believed to not be a result of random chance.
2. Most people's understanding of psychological principles goes as far as Dr. Phil and some basic knowledge of Freud. There are a lot of "bullshit theories." Those are perpetuated by people such as Dr. Phil and "Dr." John Gray. Legitimate psychological research is passed through the peer-reviewed process, and metrics, such as the ones to measure psychological stability, are tested and re-tested to determine construct validity along with concurrent validity that determines predictive outcomes with similar metrics. I suggest shifting through the peer-reviewed research, gaining an understanding of validity (construct, external, internal, predictive, and concurrent validity are all good places to start), and then make a decision on what constitutes a poor theory. Physical cues can be used as operational definitions if they have a correlational relationship with behavioral outcomes. Just about any attribute can be operationalized if it is quantifiably related to the behavior that is being measured. That includes everything from volume of voice to EEG readings.
3. The DSM is a living text that changes as research expands and grows. It is largely authored by psychiatrists, who probably do not have extensive research backgrounds, but still retain a lot of professional clinical experience. I personally would like to see more Ph.D-trained psychologists in the authorship, as they would have the most extensive research background. Actually, more Psy.d-trained psychologists would make its credibility stronger, IMO, since they would have both extensive clinical experience and still a sizable amount of research experience, at least from their undergraduate training. Regardless, the DSM is largely a valid text for diagnosing a myriad of psychological disorders, and it will become even more valid as certain controversies (i.e., dissociative identity disorder) are resolved.
4. Rob needs to rock the giant luxury car again.
well, i think your post is... well it... it contains many big words such as authorship and disorder.
dude... rob's van is a pimp mobile. it's got a seat that electrically folds flat into a bed with a privacy curtain and it's own cd player. it's one luxurious ride.
sanchez: i was going for "the big labowski" but i fucked it up. it's because i suck and am a loser at life. if i owned a gun, i'd shoot myself in the foot for penance.
