A lot of psychological interventions instill hope, provide a plausible narrative that makes sense of one’s misery and show a credible way out. The specific narrative and techniques matter less than whether the client buys into them.
Viewing entries in
Scientific Encounters
...The authors speculate that the placebo effect may be an important factor in the decline in CBT's efficacy. They note that the “placebo effect is typically stronger for newer treatments; however, as time passes and experience with therapy is gained, the strong initial expectations wane. One may question whether this is the case with CBT....
Useful “savoring strategies” included focusing attention on the present moment, engaging in positive rumination, and telling others about positive experiences. The authors conclude: “Hence, our findings contribute to the increasing body of evidence emphasizing the importance of the flexibility of biological and psychological processes for well-being…. our research suggests that practicing as many savoring strategies as possible...
Scarcity is about a perceived mismatch between what is available (supply) and what is desired (demand). You pay more attention to things associated with scarcity, whether it’s scarcity of guesses, friends, time, or income. Scarcity creates a mindset affecting what we notice, how we decide and how we act.
One of my favorite parts is Litman's list of "methodological potholes" frequently encountered in science writing. These are based mostly on Huron (2000)* and include:
- Discovery fallacy: Criticizing an idea because of its origin (e.g., from a religious text).
- Ipse dixit: Appealing to authority figures(e.g., “Research increasingly shows that...”).
- Confirmation bias: The tendency to see events as confirming a theory while viewing falsifying events as “exceptions”.
- Ad-hoc hypothesis: Proposing a supplementary hypothesis to explain why a favorite theory or interpretation failed a test.
- Data neglect: Tendency to ignore available information when assessing theories or hypotheses.
I’ll put this out first: I’m not a Climate Skeptic! Say it again: I’m not a Climate Skeptic! That said (twice), I am fine with people questioning the so-called “consensus”. This doesn’t mean that I think their opinions are always logical or backed up by high quality science. It just means there should be room for disagreement.
Initial impressions can be insightful, partly because they are not weighed down by extensive knowledge. And of course expert knowledge and understanding are also valuable!