Podcasts about Scott Lilienfeld

Blake and Karen discuss some recent werewolf projects, and what to do with all this research material accrued since this project started in 2011.  Wolf-related MonsterTalk (previous episodes) Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 Jay Smith's historical research on hyenas and French wolf attacks. (Behind a paywall, but you may be able to get free access at your local public or university libraries. Be sure and check with a librarian.) Scott Lilienfeld (et al) book on Psychology Myths mentioned regarding full moon The Werewolf of Livonia Blake's Werewolf Bibliography Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We all like to throw around terms that describe human behavior — “bystander apathy” and “steep learning curve” and “hard-wired.” Most of the time, they don't actually mean what we think they mean. But don't worry — the experts are getting it wrong, too. SOURCES:Sharon Begley, senior science writer for Stat at The Boston Globe.Jerome Kagan, emeritus professor of psychology at Harvard University.Bibb Latané, social psychologist and senior fellow at the Center for Human Science.Scott Lilienfeld, professor of psychology at Emory University.James Solomon, director and producer of The Witness. RESOURCES:“Tech Metaphors Are Holding Back Brain Research,” by Anna Vlasits (Wired, 2017).Can't Just Stop: An Investigation of Compulsions, by Sharon Begley (2017).The Witness, film by James Solomon (2016).“Fifty Psychological and Psychiatric Terms to Avoid: a List of Inaccurate, Misleading, Misused, Ambiguous, and Logically Confused Words and Phrases,” by Scott Lilienfeld, Katheryn Sauvigne, Steven Jay Lynn, Robin Cautin, Robert Latzman, and Irwin Waldman (Frontiers in Psychology, 2015).SuperFreakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner (2011).Fifty Great Myths of Popular Psychology, by Scott Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, and Barry Beyerstein (2009).Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain, by Sharon Begley (2007).“Kitty, 40 Years Later,” by Jim Rasenberger (The New York Times, 2004).“37 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police,” by Martin Gansberg (The New York Times, 1964). EXTRAS:"Academic Fraud," series by Freakonomics Radio (2024).“This Idea Must Die,”Freakonomics Radio (2015).

Seriah is joined by Super_inframan and author, researcher, and experiencer Jeremy Vaeni. Jeremy brings his unique, sarcastic sense of humor. Topics include an experience with the late Jeff Ritzmann, strange light phenomenon, the Paratopia podcast, Project Archivist, UFO disclosure, George Hansen, David Jacobs, Bud Hopkins, Emma Woods, hypnotic regression, alien abduction phenomenon, UFO Magazine, Nancy Burns, Peter Robbins, Carol Rainey, Brooklyn Bridge Abduction, Hopkin's misconduct, Paul Kimball, abduction as a spiritual experience, lack of progress in paranormal fields, a bizarre ghost hunting experience in Gettysburg, electronics in paranormal research, an experience with a Theremin, an encounter with a dark formless entity, a lost tape, Jeff Ritzmann's strange experience with a female apparition, the trickster element in high strangeness, a very weird light incident, Whitley Streiber's novel “2012: The War for Souls”, Mac Tonnies, kundalini energy, a weird encounter in a field, a strange orb/ball of light experience, multiple explanations for paranormal phenomenon, cognitive dissonance, nonsensical actions of entities, aliens with outdated technology, Bigfoot showing up in suburban areas, anomalous ghost hunting EVPs, southern Lizardman sightings, Seriah's bizarre EVP recording, fox sounds, ghost hunters fooled by coyotes, cougar encounters, Saxon's experience with a weird massive snake, an encounter with a bizarre, possibly folkloric entity in Japan, the limits of perception and the human brain, linguistics, Noam Chomsky, the importance of language to forming an understanding, the Lakota language, the Australian Indigenous language, Tiokasin Ghosthorse, the exclusiveness of the discussion about space, “The Infinite Now” podcast, Jeremy's book “Aliens: The First and Final Disclosure”, humor and high strangeness, absurdity in the paranormal, Native Hawaiian worldview, cultural appropriation, George Hansen and Trickster theory, an alleged dancing figurine of the Virgin Mary, ego in the paranormal world, Steven Greer, Kim Carlsberg, Zachariah Sitchin, human/alien hybrid theory, channeling, spiritual grifting, Scott Lilienfeld and hypnosis, and much more! This is a one of a kind, wide-ranging and delightful conversation!

Seriah is joined by Super_inframan and author, researcher, and experiencer Jeremy Vaeni. Jeremy brings his unique, sarcastic sense of humor. Topics include an experience with the late Jeff Ritzmann, strange light phenomenon, the Paratopia podcast, Project Archivist, UFO disclosure, George Hansen, David Jacobs, Bud Hopkins, Emma Woods, hypnotic regression, alien abduction phenomenon, UFO Magazine, Nancy Burns, Peter Robbins, Carol Rainey, Brooklyn Bridge Abduction, Hopkin's misconduct, Paul Kimball, abduction as a spiritual experience, lack of progress in paranormal fields, a bizarre ghost hunting experience in Gettysburg, electronics in paranormal research, an experience with a Theremin, an encounter with a dark formless entity, a lost tape, Jeff Ritzmann's strange experience with a female apparition, the trickster element in high strangeness, a very weird light incident, Whitley Streiber's novel “2012: The War for Souls”, Mac Tonnies, kundalini energy, a weird encounter in a field, a strange orb/ball of light experience, multiple explanations for paranormal phenomenon, cognitive dissonance, nonsensical actions of entities, aliens with outdated technology, Bigfoot showing up in suburban areas, anomalous ghost hunting EVPs, southern Lizardman sightings, Seriah's bizarre EVP recording, fox sounds, ghost hunters fooled by coyotes, cougar encounters, Saxon's experience with a weird massive snake, an encounter with a bizarre, possibly folkloric entity in Japan, the limits of perception and the human brain, linguistics, Noam Chomsky, the importance of language to forming an understanding, the Lakota language, the Australian Indigenous language, Tiokasin Ghosthorse, the exclusiveness of the discussion about space, “The Infinite Now” podcast, Jeremy's book “Aliens: The First and Final Disclosure”, humor and high strangeness, absurdity in the paranormal, Native Hawaiian worldview, cultural appropriation, George Hansen and Trickster theory, an alleged dancing figurine of the Virgin Mary, ego in the paranormal world, Steven Greer, Kim Carlsberg, Zachariah Sitchin, human/alien hybrid theory, channeling, spiritual grifting, Scott Lilienfeld and hypnosis, and much more! This is a one of a kind, wide-ranging and delightful conversation! - Recap by Vincent Treewell of The Weird Part Podcast Outro Music by The Jon Stickley Trio with "Darth Radar". Download

Narcissism lives in all of us to some degree as on a spectrum. And it's easy to see how having even a tinge of narcissism could have been a valuable survival tool over the ages. But like with everything, there is a limit to what is healthy and what is toxic. Psychologist and author of Rethinking Narcissism Dr. Craig Malkin talks about the extroverted narcissist, i.e. “the narcissist we all know and loathe”, but says there are others. And like with most things there is an equal and opposite thing that compliments it. Meet the narcissist and its foil, the echoist. A match made in heaven? Not even close. Malkin describes his echoist relationship with his narcissist mother, the barriers people have to getting out of toxic relationships, the importance of anger and how a certain medication can help - if the narcissist actually thinks they need it. If you have questions or guest suggestions, Ali would love to hear from you. Call or text her at (323) 364-6356. Or email go-ask-ali-podcast-at-gmail.com. (No dashes) **Go Ask Ali has been nominated for a Webby Award for Best Interview/Talk Show Episode! Please vote for her and the whole team at https://bit.ly/415e8uN by April 20, 2023! Links of Interest: Dr. Craig Malkin Rethinking Narcissism: The Secret to Recognizing and Coping with Narcissists Instagram  YouTube The Communal Narcissist: A New Kind of Narcissist? (Psychology Today) The Most Narcissistic U.S. Presidents (Pew Research, 2013) Malignant Narcissism: Does the President Have it? (Psychology Today, 2020) CREDITS: Executive Producers: Sandie Bailey, Alex Alcheh, Lauren Hohman, Tyler Klang & Gabrielle Collins Producer & Editor: Brooke Peterson-Bell Associate Producer: Akiya McKnightSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wir springen in dieser Folge in zwei unterschiedliche Zeiten und an zwei unterschiedliche Orte. Trotzdem sprechen wir über ein Thema: Intelligente Pferde und ihre Besitzer. Wir unterhalten uns in dieser Folge über Morocco, ein Pferd im elisabethanischen England, dem allerlei wundersame Dinge angedichtet wurden. Und wir sprechen über den Klugen Hans, ein Pferd, das Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts in Berlin für einen wahren Medienzirkus sorgte. Obwohl zu so unterschiedlichen Zeiten und an so unterschiedlichen Orten, hinterließen beide einen ziemlichen Eindruck, in einem Fall sogar bis hin zur Erforschung künstlicher Intelligenz. // Literatur - Erica Fudge. Brutal Reasoning. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2016. - Gundlach, Horst. „Carl Stumpf, Oskar Pfungst, der Kluge Hans und eine geglückte Vernebelungsaktion“. Psychologische Rundschau 57 (1. April 2006): 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.57.2.96. - Kevin de Ornellas. The Horse in Early Modern English Culture: Bridled, Curbed, and Tamed. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2013. - Oskar Pfungst. Das Pferd des Herrn v. Osten (Der kluge Hans). Ein Beitrag zur experim. Tier- und Menschenpsychologie mit einer Einleitung von Professor Dr. C. Stumpf., 1907. - Ricky Jay. Learned Pigs & Fireproof Women. Villard, 1986. - Thomas Heinzen, Scott Lilienfeld, und Susan A. Nolan. The Horse That Won't Go Away. Worth Publishers, 2014. Das Episodenbild zeigt im oberen Teil eine Darstellung Moroccos mit seinem Trainer Banks und im unteren Teil ein Foto des Klugen Hans mit seinem Besitzer von Osten. Die erwähnte "Ologies"-Folge gibt's hier anzuhören: https://pca.st/cnc871tg //Aus unserer Werbung Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/GeschichtenausderGeschichte NEU: Wer unsere Folgen lieber ohne Werbung anhören will, kann das über eine kleine Unterstützung auf Steady oder ein Abo des GeschichteFM-Plus Kanals auf Apple Podcasts tun. Wir freuen uns, wenn ihr den Podcast bei Apple Podcasts rezensiert oder bewertet. Für alle jene, die kein iTunes verwenden, gibt's die Podcastplattform Panoptikum, auch dort könnt ihr uns empfehlen, bewerten aber auch euer ganz eigenes Podcasthörer:innenprofil erstellen. Wir freuen uns auch immer, wenn ihr euren Freundinnen und Freunden, Kolleginnen und Kollegen oder sogar Nachbarinnen und Nachbarn von uns erzählt!

The late, great Dr. Scott Lilienfeld was a professor of psychology at Emory University and editor of Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. He also co-authored 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology and was a contributing blogger at Psychology Today. In what quickly became a controversial and landmark episode, Dr. Lilienfeld not only explored the myth that hypnosis is an appropriate memory retrieval tool for alien abduction research, he destroyed it. In the process, he, along with The Jeff and The Jer, examined the Emma Woods/David Jacobs debacle that seemed every bit as surreal as the alien abduction stories in Jacobs's books. Was his behavior appropriate? Is this what happens when a man gets too absorbed in his own conclusions about the unknown? Hear Dr. Lilienfeld's initial impressions. If you know of anyone who is thinking about undergoing hypnosis, please direct them here. This should be required listening for anyone who wants to undergo it or practice it.

For centuries scientists, science writers and philosophers have encouraged us to trust our common sense (Lilienfeld et al., 2010; Furnham, 1996). Common sense is a phrase that generally implies something everyone knows. One of the definitions of common sense given by Wikipedia is, “good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.” Common sense psychology is a myth. What appears to be common sense is often common nonsense. Scott Lilienfeld, co-author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology, says we should mistrust common sense when evaluating psychological claims (Lilienfeld et al., 2010).Some examples of common sense psychology include: Working while in high school will help students build character and value money. Children who read a lot are not very social or physically fit. People with low self esteem are more aggressive. The best way to treat juvenile delinquents is to get tough with them. Most psychopaths are delusional. We know what will make us happy. Tune in and learn how to access your own common sense!

For centuries scientists, science writers and philosophers have encouraged us to trust our common sense (Lilienfeld et al., 2010; Furnham, 1996). Common sense is a phrase that generally implies something everyone knows. One of the definitions of common sense given by Wikipedia is, “good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.” Common sense psychology is a myth. What appears to be common sense is often common nonsense. Scott Lilienfeld, co-author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology, says we should mistrust common sense when evaluating psychological claims (Lilienfeld et al., 2010).Some examples of common sense psychology include: Working while in high school will help students build character and value money. Children who read a lot are not very social or physically fit. People with low self esteem are more aggressive. The best way to treat juvenile delinquents is to get tough with them. Most psychopaths are delusional. We know what will make us happy. Tune in and learn how to access your own common sense!

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is The Science of Winning at Life, Part 1: Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge, published by lukeprog. Part of the sequence: The Science of Winning at Life Some have suggested that the Less Wrong community could improve readers' instrumental rationality more effectively if it first caught up with the scientific literature on productivity and self-help, and then enabled readers to deliberately practice self-help skills and apply what they've learned in real life. I think that's a good idea. My contribution today is a quick overview of scientific self-help: what professionals call "the psychology of adjustment." First I'll review the state of the industry and the scientific literature, and then I'll briefly summarize the scientific data available on three topics in self-help: study methods, productivity, and happiness. The industry and the literature As you probably know, much of the self-help industry is a sham, ripe for parody. Most self-help books are written to sell, not to help. Pop psychology may be more myth than fact. As Christopher Buckley (1999) writes, "The more people read [self-help books], the more they think they need them... [it's] more like an addiction than an alliance." Where can you turn for reliable, empirically-based self-help advice? A few leading therapeutic psychologists (e.g., Albert Ellis, Arnold Lazarus, Martin Seligman) have written self-help books based on decades of research, but even these works tend to give recommendations that are still debated, because they aren't yet part of settled science. Lifelong self-help researcher Clayton Tucker-Ladd wrote and updated Psychological Self-Help (pdf) over several decades. It's a summary of what scientists do and don't know about self-help methods (as of about 2003), but it's also more than 2,000 pages long, and much of it surveys scientific opinion rather than experimental results, because on many subjects there aren't any experimental results yet. The book is associated with an internet community of people sharing what does and doesn't work for them. More immediately useful is Richard Wiseman's 59 Seconds. Wiseman is an experimental psychologist and paranormal investigator who gathered together what little self-help research is part of settled science, and put it into a short, fun, and useful Malcolm Gladwell-ish book. The next best popular-level general self-help book is perhaps Martin Seligman's What You Can Change and What You Can't. Two large books rate hundreds of popular self-help books according to what professional psychologists think of them, and offer advice on how to choose self-help books. Unfortunately, this may not mean much because even professional psychologists very often have opinions that depart from the empirical data, as documented extensively by Scott Lilienfeld and others in Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology and Navigating the Mindfield. These two books are helpful in assessing what is and isn't known according to empirical research (rather than according to expert opinion). Lilienfeld also edits the useful journal Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and has compiled a list of harmful psychological treatments. Also see Nathan and Gorman's A Guide to Treatments That Work, Roth & Fonagy's What Works for Whom?, and, more generally, Stanovich's How to Think Straight about Psychology. Many self-help books are written as "one size fits all," but of course this is rarely appropriate in psychology, and this leads to reader disappointment (Norem & Chang, 2000). But psychologists have tested the effectiveness of reading particular problem-focused self-help books ("bibliotherapy").1 For example, it appears that reading David Burns' Feeling Good can be as effective for treating depression as individual or group therapy. Results vary from book to book. ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is The Science of Winning at Life, Part 1: Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge, published by lukeprog. Part of the sequence: The Science of Winning at Life Some have suggested that the Less Wrong community could improve readers' instrumental rationality more effectively if it first caught up with the scientific literature on productivity and self-help, and then enabled readers to deliberately practice self-help skills and apply what they've learned in real life. I think that's a good idea. My contribution today is a quick overview of scientific self-help: what professionals call "the psychology of adjustment." First I'll review the state of the industry and the scientific literature, and then I'll briefly summarize the scientific data available on three topics in self-help: study methods, productivity, and happiness. The industry and the literature As you probably know, much of the self-help industry is a sham, ripe for parody. Most self-help books are written to sell, not to help. Pop psychology may be more myth than fact. As Christopher Buckley (1999) writes, "The more people read [self-help books], the more they think they need them... [it's] more like an addiction than an alliance." Where can you turn for reliable, empirically-based self-help advice? A few leading therapeutic psychologists (e.g., Albert Ellis, Arnold Lazarus, Martin Seligman) have written self-help books based on decades of research, but even these works tend to give recommendations that are still debated, because they aren't yet part of settled science. Lifelong self-help researcher Clayton Tucker-Ladd wrote and updated Psychological Self-Help (pdf) over several decades. It's a summary of what scientists do and don't know about self-help methods (as of about 2003), but it's also more than 2,000 pages long, and much of it surveys scientific opinion rather than experimental results, because on many subjects there aren't any experimental results yet. The book is associated with an internet community of people sharing what does and doesn't work for them. More immediately useful is Richard Wiseman's 59 Seconds. Wiseman is an experimental psychologist and paranormal investigator who gathered together what little self-help research is part of settled science, and put it into a short, fun, and useful Malcolm Gladwell-ish book. The next best popular-level general self-help book is perhaps Martin Seligman's What You Can Change and What You Can't. Two large books rate hundreds of popular self-help books according to what professional psychologists think of them, and offer advice on how to choose self-help books. Unfortunately, this may not mean much because even professional psychologists very often have opinions that depart from the empirical data, as documented extensively by Scott Lilienfeld and others in Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology and Navigating the Mindfield. These two books are helpful in assessing what is and isn't known according to empirical research (rather than according to expert opinion). Lilienfeld also edits the useful journal Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and has compiled a list of harmful psychological treatments. Also see Nathan and Gorman's A Guide to Treatments That Work, Roth & Fonagy's What Works for Whom?, and, more generally, Stanovich's How to Think Straight about Psychology. Many self-help books are written as "one size fits all," but of course this is rarely appropriate in psychology, and this leads to reader disappointment (Norem & Chang, 2000). But psychologists have tested the effectiveness of reading particular problem-focused self-help books ("bibliotherapy").1 For example, it appears that reading David Burns' Feeling Good can be as effective for treating depression as individual or group therapy. Results vary from book to book. ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge, published by lukeprog on the LessWrong. Part of the sequence: The Science of Winning at Life Some have suggested that the Less Wrong community could improve readers' instrumental rationality more effectively if it first caught up with the scientific literature on productivity and self-help, and then enabled readers to deliberately practice self-help skills and apply what they've learned in real life. I think that's a good idea. My contribution today is a quick overview of scientific self-help: what professionals call "the psychology of adjustment." First I'll review the state of the industry and the scientific literature, and then I'll briefly summarize the scientific data available on three topics in self-help: study methods, productivity, and happiness. The industry and the literature As you probably know, much of the self-help industry is a sham, ripe for parody. Most self-help books are written to sell, not to help. Pop psychology may be more myth than fact. As Christopher Buckley (1999) writes, "The more people read [self-help books], the more they think they need them... [it's] more like an addiction than an alliance." Where can you turn for reliable, empirically-based self-help advice? A few leading therapeutic psychologists (e.g., Albert Ellis, Arnold Lazarus, Martin Seligman) have written self-help books based on decades of research, but even these works tend to give recommendations that are still debated, because they aren't yet part of settled science. Lifelong self-help researcher Clayton Tucker-Ladd wrote and updated Psychological Self-Help (pdf) over several decades. It's a summary of what scientists do and don't know about self-help methods (as of about 2003), but it's also more than 2,000 pages long, and much of it surveys scientific opinion rather than experimental results, because on many subjects there aren't any experimental results yet. The book is associated with an internet community of people sharing what does and doesn't work for them. More immediately useful is Richard Wiseman's 59 Seconds. Wiseman is an experimental psychologist and paranormal investigator who gathered together what little self-help research is part of settled science, and put it into a short, fun, and useful Malcolm Gladwell-ish book. The next best popular-level general self-help book is perhaps Martin Seligman's What You Can Change and What You Can't. Two large books rate hundreds of popular self-help books according to what professional psychologists think of them, and offer advice on how to choose self-help books. Unfortunately, this may not mean much because even professional psychologists very often have opinions that depart from the empirical data, as documented extensively by Scott Lilienfeld and others in Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology and Navigating the Mindfield. These two books are helpful in assessing what is and isn't known according to empirical research (rather than according to expert opinion). Lilienfeld also edits the useful journal Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and has compiled a list of harmful psychological treatments. Also see Nathan and Gorman's A Guide to Treatments That Work, Roth & Fonagy's What Works for Whom?, and, more generally, Stanovich's How to Think Straight about Psychology. Many self-help books are written as "one size fits all," but of course this is rarely appropriate in psychology, and this leads to reader disappointment (Norem & Chang, 2000). But psychologists have tested the effectiveness of reading particular problem-focused self-help books ("bibliotherapy").1 For example, it appears that reading David Burns' Feeling Good can be as effective for treating depression as individual or group therapy. Results vary from book to book. There are at least fou...

The hosts issue a major boob-related correction, talk about TikTok influencers who (appear to) have dissociative identity disorder, and discuss the recent meltdown of a site that (claims that it) is "science-based." Plus: Some other, often-cringeworthy recent skepticism/atheism history, including Elevatorgate (tm). Maria Taylor out: https://www.si.com/media/2021/07/21/maria-taylor-espn-split-nbc-likely-next (https://www.si.com/media/2021/07/21/maria-taylor-espn-split-nbc-likely-next) Scott Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz, a bit skeptical of Dissociative Identity Disorder in Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-people-have-multiple-personalities/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-people-have-multiple-personalities/) Input on the DID subculture on TikTok: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/dissociative-identity-disorder-did-tiktok-influencers-multiple-personalities (https://www.inputmag.com/culture/dissociative-identity-disorder-did-tiktok-influencers-multiple-personalities) @theasystem and @systemspouse: https://www.tiktok.com/@theasystem/video/6987819970646265094 (https://www.tiktok.com/@theasystem/video/6987819970646265094) https://www.tiktok.com/@systemspouse/video/6987084259601157382 (https://www.tiktok.com/@systemspouse/video/6987084259601157382) https://www.tiktok.com/@systemspouse/video/6985581388808473862 (https://www.tiktok.com/@systemspouse/video/6985581388808473862) One of the stranger subreddits you'll see: https://www.reddit.com/r/DIDCringe/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/DIDCringe/) Science-Based Medicine's very bad and error-riddled coverage of Irreversible Damage: Novella and Gorski: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-transgender-treatment/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-transgender-treatment/) Lovell: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/abigail-shriers-irreversible-damage-a-wealth-of-irreversible-misinformation/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/abigail-shriers-irreversible-damage-a-wealth-of-irreversible-misinformation/) Eckert: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-to-the-trans-community-a-critical-review-of-abigail-shriers-book-irreversible-damage-part-one/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-to-the-trans-community-a-critical-review-of-abigail-shriers-book-irreversible-damage-part-one/) https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-to-the-trans-community-a-critical-review-of-abigail-shriers-book-irreversible-damage-the-transgender-craze-seducing-our-daughters-part-two/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-to-the-trans-community-a-critical-review-of-abigail-shriers-book-irreversible-damage-the-transgender-craze-seducing-our-daughters-part-two/) Jesse's responses: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-based-medicine-botched (https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-based-medicine-botched) https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-based-medicines-coverage (https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-based-medicines-coverage) Leaked email about Jesse that treats Gorcenski and James as credible sources: https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1412511853067051010 (https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1412511853067051010) Gorcenski: "If you wonder if there's anyone who I dislike more than the Nazis who assaulted me and nearly killed me, there is at least one person and his name is Jesse Singal." https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/fauto,qauto:good,flprogressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9eed6bf4-fa8c-4802-80ea-282818a0b26d952x419.png (https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9eed6bf4-fa8c-4802-80ea-282818a0b26d_952x419.png) Jesse on Gorcenski: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-sorta-quick-response-to-the-errors (https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-sorta-quick-response-to-the-errors) Some background on Andrea James: http://alicedreger.com/in_fear (http://alicedreger.com/in_fear) Longer but free, and tells the whole story: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/) Rebecca Watson Wikipedia page with some information on Elevatorgate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson) Her account of what happened: https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/10/sexism-in-the-skeptic-community-i-spoke-out-then-came-the-rape-threats.html (https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/10/sexism-in-the-skeptic-community-i-spoke-out-then-came-the-rape-threats.html)

Have the Architects of the Covid-19 Pandemic Lost Touch with Reality?   Richard Gale & Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, May 28, 2021   As the pandemic wages into its second year, two diametrically opposing movements have consolidated in defiance against each other. The dominant contingent, represented by Biden, Congress, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates and the mainstream media, has decided that any citizen who refuses a Covid-19 vaccine is a de facto enemy of the state. “Ultimately,” Joe Biden declared during another gaff remark about the status of the government’s vaccination campaign, “those who are not vaccinated will pay – end up paying the price.” Despite the dubious claims that the mRNA vaccines are approximately 95 percent effective, the unvaccinated therefore mysteriously pose a health risk to the vaccinated. Consequently, any punitive actions the federal and state governments undertake, including encouraging the social media to publicly shame and censor voices of caution and reason, are justified.    In an effort to marginalize and socially victimize Israeli citizens who have postponed or refused vaccination, Netanyahu and his right-wing Knesset supporters passed a bill permitting personal information and data about unvaccinated citizens to be shared across government agencies and civil institutions.  Israel was named by Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla as the “world’s lab” for the company’s Covid-19 vaccine roll out. Contrary to the government’s response to criticisms, the unvaccinated are theoretically second-class citizens, branded with a “scarlet letter” depriving them of full engagement with Israeli society, including going to a restaurant, attending a movie, concert or athletic event. Many are unable to shop or go to work.  Even the staunch pro-Zionist New York Times indicated the government’s policies are “moving in the direction of a two-tier system for the vaccinated and unvaccinated.”    An analysis comparing Israeli Covid-19 infection and vaccine-related deaths conducted by Dr. Herve Seligmann, an Israeli-national at Aix-Marseille University of Medicine’s Faculty of Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases, concluded that the Pfizer vaccine has caused “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compare[d] to the mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”  Seligmann and his co-author Haim Yativ have referred to Netanyahu’s draconian policies with unsafe experimental vaccines as a “new Holocaust.”  A civilian organization, the Israeli People Committee, which includes many health professionals, released a devastating report on the number of injuries and deaths resulting from Pfizer’s vaccine.  It was during the peak of the government’s vaccination campaign that Israel experienced its highest mortality rate, especially among those between 20 and 29 years of age. The Committee reported, “26 percent of all cardiac events occurred in young people up to the age of 40, with the most common diagnosis in these cases being myositis and pericarditis.” Other adverse vaccine reactions included infarction, stroke, miscarriage, impaired blood circulation and pulmonary embolisms.   Nevertheless, Israel has become the poster child for far more than serving as Pfizer’s experimental laboratory for human ferrets. It also models a caste society of haves and have nots, the rewarded and the repressed, the vaccine-anointed and the untouchables, as strategized by the World Economic Forum’s future technological proposals in its Great Reset. Netanyahu is has seemingly fully bought into Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution and it’s re-visioning of the very definition of the human species. Last October, during the WEF’s “Great Reset” virtual session, Netanyahu appeared with Colombia’s far-right president Ivan Dugue – polled as the least popular president during that nation’s history -- and Rwanda’s war criminal Paul Kagame, along with executives in the biotech and financial industries, to advocate on behalf of the Forum’s mantra that the pandemic is an “opportunity” to further mobilize global digital infrastructure systems, including Covid-19 vaccination verification via microchip technology.   Now we are witnessing Canada, the UK and the US aggressively mimicking Israel’s heavy-handed policies to establish full-spectrum social control and make efforts to implement a post-modern, technologically driven caste system. Although Biden stated he does not support a federal mandate on vaccination passports, it has been left to the individual states to decide. Democrat-controlled states, notably New York, are issuing vaccine passports as a ticket to allow the vaccinated to return to a new normal. Republican governors on the other hand have been quick to denounce them, and in the case of Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana and Texas to executively ban them altogether. Hopefully some of the bans will challenge many of the over one hundred private colleges and universities that decided to require students to be vaccinated before returning in Fall.   The mainstream corporate-Democrat media, led by the New York Times, Washington Post, the Daily Beast, US News & World Report, CNN, NPR and MSNBC spew volleys of baseless propaganda that the vaccines are effective and wholly safe. However, thousands of medical school professors, physicians and researchers worldwide are challenging this non-consensual assumption. They regularly point out that there is no reliable science to justify any such claims. This raises the question: what are the vaccines effective against? Surely not contracting SARS-CoV-2; thousands of fully-vaccinated people are testing positive with the infection. The CDC has reported “seven percent of those [vaccinated] who have been infected have been hospitalized and 74 have died.”   Government efforts to reach a fictitious herd immunity threshold will inevitably come at a great cost to human life. More recent studies suggest that an exceedingly large percentage of Americans should technically be exempt from Covid-19 vaccines.  The University of Michigan published a recent analysis in JAMA Network Open suggesting that three percent of vaccinated Americans taking immune-weakening drugs have an increased risk of hospitalization. The study is grossly conservative and undermines the breadth of the problem. The researchers only analyzed patients with private insurance, under the age of 65, and who were only prescribed immunosuppressive steroids, such as corticosteroids and prednisone. Other immunosuppressive drugs such “selective immunosuppressants” and calcineurin and interleukin inhibitors were seemingly excluded from the Michigan analysis. Thirty-three percent of the American population was therefore excluded from the study because, according to the CDC, only 66.8 percent of the population has private health insurance. New York University researchers reported in the British Medical Journal that a third of patients receiving methotrexate and TNF-inhibitors for immune-mediated inflammatory illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis fail to achieve sufficient antibodies from the Pfizer vaccine. We are certain this will be found equally true for many other medications if or when studies are conducted.    The CDC’s belief that only 4 percent of Americans are immune-compromised is a misleading under-estimation. The agency’s defining criteria is narrow and limited to HIV/AIDS and cancer patients, inherited genetic diseases, and patients who have undergone organ transplants and are prescribed immunosuppressive drugs. On the other hand, there are over 100 different autoimmune conditions, including type-1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, blood cancers, lupus, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid and other types of arthritis, psoriasis, IgG4 disease, Hashimoto’s and Addison’s diseases, celiac disease, etc. These additional individuals, who account for over 50 million Americans, have malfunctioning immune systems that increase their susceptibility to both severe SARS-CoV-2 infections (if left untreated during its early stage) and a higher probability of vaccine adverse reactions.    Consequently, a very conservative 17 percent of Americans are at greater risk from either viral infection or vaccine injury or death. This also excludes tens of millions of adults (30 percent) and children (40 percent) with chronic allergies and many of the over 89,000 cancer patients diagnosed annually and prescribed chemotherapeutic drugs. Every year, nearly two-thirds of all Americans require emergency medical care from allergic reactions alone.  Furthermore, those with certain immune weaknesses are less likely to generate sufficient vaccine-induced antibodies thereby making Covid-19 vaccination ineffective.    Especially disturbing is that the clinical trials the FDA relied upon for Emergency Use Authorization for the past five months of the vaccination campaign were based upon enrollment of healthy participants. Only recently are clinical trials either underway or in recruitment to test the vaccines on participants with weakened immune systems, including small children and infants, and on pregnant women. In the meantime, millions of immunosuppressed people diagnosed with autoimmune conditions or pre-existing comorbidities, from young to old, are being indiscriminately injected. Given the CDC’s previous track record of reckless vaccination policies, upon these trials’ completion, we will surely see vaccination forced upon every infant carelessly. This has been a policy enacted so far on the elderly, the sickly, the immune-compromised, pregnant moms, and the rest of the nation. It is not irrational, therefore, to suspect that past and present Covid-19 trials have been conducted with malice of forethought and with the unconditional approval of our federal health officials.    During the pandemic, the rapid ascent of our vaccine-addicted culture’s mantra of “vaccination at any cost” truly borders on medical malfeasance and criminal negligence. The overriding emphasis on vaccination and near total disregard for implementing very simple preventative measures to inhibit infections from progressing in severity. If our health policymakers were wise men and women, alternative treatments such as ivermectin, hydroxycholoroquine, and more recent inexpensive off-patent drugs, which have been shown to be highly effective for early stage treatment and being widely prescribed elsewhere in the world, would be permitted and encouraged without reservation. There would be no reason to wait for a novel drug costing thousands of dollars per patient to arrive.  And we still await that magic bullet drug because the previous one, remdesivir, was faulty blank. This is just another example of the institutionalized pathology that infects our health agencies.    There is no convincing science to support our federal officials belief that a previously infected person requires a Covid-19 vaccine to acquire immunity. In fact, more recent research indicates the opposite and goes directly against the intellectually fetid arguments of the now disgraced financier Bill Gates that every person on the planet should be vaccinated without exception. Johns Hopkins University professor Dr. Marty Makary has put forth the evidence that “natural immunity works.” Makary notes that it is only the rare instance when a person is being re-infected. Washington University School of Medicine reported this month that even mild Covid-19 infections induce long lasting antibody protection. The study’s lead researcher Dr. Ali Ellebedy stated,   "Last fall, there were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived… But that's a misinterpretation of the data. It's normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don't go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people's lives. That's strong evidence for long-lasting immunity."   The information we were fed to downplay natural immunity was wrong at best, and more likely a lie, in order to further persuade the public into the importance of the vaccines to return their lives to normal. Another study appearing in this month’s Journal of Infectious Diseases found that “SARS-CoV-2 specific immune memory response [following infection] persists in most patients nearly one year after infection.” The Covid-19 vaccines can’t make the same promise. In fact, more reports show that  fully vaccinated persons are becoming infected.    But it gets worse.     The pro-vaccine argument wrongly assumes that anyone who refuses the Covid-19 vaccines is therefore anti-vaxxer. We would argue it is rational caution in the face of a national healthcare system indebted to the pharmaceutical industry and that is rapidly losing public trust. Likewise, if a doctor is successfully treating hundreds of patients without a reported death with cheap, effective drugs, she or he is canceled and ridiculed as a quack. Instead of open dialogue and debate, those who challenge the Medical Church Scientific are censored by Google and from all social platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia. This is despite the impeccable credentials of many medical professionals abiding by the precautionary principle and who dare to challenge Anthony Fauci and the global vaccine czar Bill Gates, whose faux philanthropy is nothing less than another profitmaking enterprise like Microsoft.    Conflicts of interests, both financial and non-financial, are endemic in our medical system. Therefore it becomes increasingly more difficult to trust any clinical study or government policy that is based upon flawed evidence submitted by a drug maker that fails to undergo a thorough independent and impartial review by qualified medical experts. There is a clear psychological reason for this. Many psychologists have pointed out over the years that “cognitive bias,” “motivated reasoning” and the heuristics driving the evaluation of clinical trial data and the subsequent institutional regulatory review and decision-making are deeply contrary and undermine the entire evidence-based criteria that should oversee what drugs, vaccines, medical devices, therapeutic protocols should be recommended or approved for use upon the public.     The late Scott Lilienfeld, a professor of psychology at Emory University, writes, “Clinicians are subject to the same errors in thinking that affect virtually all people. In particular, practitioners must be wary of (a) the misuse of certain heuristics (e.g., availability, representativeness) and (b) cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, hindsight bias) in their everyday work.” Although Lilienfeld is singling out clinical physicians, it applies more rigorously and accurately to the pharmaceutical presidents, CEOs and chief science officers overseeing vaccine development who have stock prices to reach and shareholders to please.  Cognitive bias equally plagues the entire executive hierarchy at the CDC, NIAID, FDA and HHS who are beholden to the gaping revolving door between these agencies and private industry and their revenues. Writing about the deep ethical concerns behind bias in our medical institutions, Dr. Thomas Murray, President of the Hastings Center, states, “For scientists on a panel of the Food and Drug Administration, for example, it isn’t immediately clear to whom they owe their primary loyalty.”  Such biases, Murray believes, have completely destroyed the credibility of the World Health Organization.     The fact that rates to reproduce medical clinical trials are so poor, according to behavioral economist Susann Fielder at the Max Planck Institute, is that “cognitive biases may be a reason for that.”  It also explains why Stanford University Medical School professor John Ioannidis argues, “most published research findings are false,” and “an estimated 85 percent of research resources are wasted.” Junk science based upon bias should also include every vaccine application submitted to the FDA for regulatory approval, since the vaccine companies are privileged to cherry-pick whichever trials they want to submit to create the most promising portfolio.    One could review all of the official decisions made during the past 17 months – by Anthony Fauci, Trump and Biden and the naïve stances in both political parties – and should easily observe the frailties of cognitive bias and repeated contradictions throughout. None whatsoever are reliably truthful. And of course, cognitive bias leads to cognitive dissonance, such as denying that one has a bias or resorting to flagrant rejection and disparagement in order to avoid any scientific data that conflicts with one’s unfounded beliefs.   We now live in a nation of medicine by bureaucratic decree rather than by immunological science. This is postmodern cultism at its worst because it hides behind the veneer of being scientific. And it has the full support of a political technocracy that can ordain authoritarian laws. There is a dire need for a collective epiphany. All of us are experiencing the pandemic as a failed experiment orchestrated by institutions that have lost touch with reality. And it has been a very deadly experiment due to the extraordinary incompetence of our medical-degreed bureaucrats. Sadly the decades of institutional ineptitude has had to reach national and perhaps global awareness at this time when the powers that possess every technological tool at their disposal to conduct wide surveillance, pass undemocratic and draconian laws with full impunity, and control the fenced sheep within the mainstream media. Attachments area

It seems like a week can't go by without a news story about how neuroscience has discovered the neurological basis of love, morality, addiction, you name it. Yet how much explanatory power does neuroscience really have -- and are we putting too much trust in its findings? On this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia explore these questions with psychiatrist Sally Satel and professor of psychology Scott O. Lilienfeld, the authors of "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience." Sped up the speakers by ['1.0', '1.0']

After having the past few weeks marked by very grave serious national news that added to our already maxed-out pandemic related stress,  forest fires in the Western United States, the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump’s taxes being released, a chaotic presidential debate, the death of prominent psychologist Dr. Scott Lilienfeld, and then Trump predictably contracting COVID - we decided to do a fairly lighthearted show this time around.  We talk about Cobra Kai and examine its characters from a psychological perspective. There are a bunch of spoilers but surely you all have binged on it already so there is nothing to spoil. And if you have not seen Cobra Kai, go watch it; it is great. And still listen to this episode because psychological science shows that “Story Spoilers Don’t Spoil Stories”and in fact it may actually improve them. We had a blast making this episode as we discussed all the rumbles we were involved in as teenagers as well as Bananarama, both the band and the pancakes. This past summer was a cruel, cruel, summer indeed, enjoy this respite before November because it looks like 2020 is showing NO MERCY!”-----More about Dr. Scott Lilienfeld and his contributions to psychology:Remembering Dr. Lilienfeld50 Great Myths of Popular PsychologyPsychological Treatments that Cause HarmThe Dodo Bird verdict: Status in 2014---Follow us on Twitter: @_psychodrama and Instagram: @psychodramapodcast.If you like our podcast, please rate and review us on iTunes, so other people can find us. Thanks so much for listening! 

Our guest is physician and author Sally Satel, MD. Dr. Satel is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and staff psychiatrist at a local methadone clinic in the Washington DC area. She earned a bachelor's degree from Cornell University, a master's degree from the University of Chicago, and an MD degree from Brown University. She has written widely in academic journals on topics in psychiatry and medicine, and has published articles on cultural aspects of medicine and science in numerous magazines and journals. She has testified before Congress on veterans' issues, mental health policy, drug courts, and health disparities. She is the author of numerous books including The Health Disparities Myth: Diagnosing the Treatment Gap with co-author Jonathan Klick and, most recently, Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience co-authored with Scott Lilienfeld. SHOW NOTES Sally Satel, MD: Twitter and Website“The Hypocritical Oath” (in Persuasion online community)The Health Disparities Myth: Diagnosing the Treatment Gap (with co-author Jonathan Klick)Watch the episode on YouTube

Our guest is physician and author Sally Satel, MD. Dr. Satel is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and staff psychiatrist at a local methadone clinic in the Washington DC area. She earned a bachelor's degree from Cornell University, a master's degree from the University of Chicago, and an MD degree from Brown University. She has written widely in academic journals on topics in psychiatry and medicine, and has published articles on cultural aspects of medicine and science in numerous magazines and journals. She has testified before Congress on veterans’ issues, mental health policy, drug courts, and health disparities. She is the author of numerous books including The Health Disparities Myth:Diagnosing the Treatment Gap with co-author Jonathan Klick and, most recently, Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience co-authored with Scott Lilienfeld. GUEST: Sally Satel, MD: https://twitter.com/slsatel (Twitter) and https://sallysatelmd.com/ (Website) LINKS: "https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-hypocritical-oath-054 (The Hypocritical Oath)" (in Persuasion online community) https://www.amazon.com/Health-Disparities-Myth-Diagnosing-Treatment/dp/0844771929 (The Health Disparities Myth: Diagnosing the Treatment Gap) (with co-author Jonathan Klick) RELATED EPISODES: https://accadandkoka.com/episodes/episode144/ (Ep. 144 John Mandrola: Why Doctoring and Politics Shouldn't Mix) WATCH ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/tLjnCEVVt7I (Watch the episode) on our YouTube channel SUPPORT THE SHOW: https://www.patreon.com/accadandkoka (Make a small donation) on our Patreon page on and join our discussion group or receive a free book. Support this podcast

Patients always receive treatment in agreement with the best scientific evidence available, right? Well, no. Not really. Clinical practitioners seem to suffer from many of the cognitive biases that affect the rest of us, and treatment decisions are often much less science-based that we might like to think. Scott Lilienfeld joins Igor and Charles to discuss evidence-based practice in psychotherapy, the importance of doubting, clinical psychology’s dirty little secret, Scarlett Johansson’s brain, confirmation bias, how science really works, and why people just can’t let go of the idea that a full moon triggers werewolf-style behaviour. Igor reveals he learnt his English from TV detective ‘Columbo’, Scott discusses the fine art of planting seeds of doubt in conversations, and Charles learns from Abraham Lincoln that intellectual humility can ultimately be a path to earned intellectual confidence. Welcome to Episode 22. Special Guest: Scott Lilienfeld.

Sam Harris speaks with Sally Satel about addiction. They discuss whether addiction should be considered a disease, the opiate epidemic in the U.S., the unique danger of fentanyl, the politicization of medicine, PTSD, and other topics. Sally Satel, M.D., is a practicing psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine who examines mental health policy as well as political trends in medicine. Her publications include PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine; When Altruism Isn’t Enough: The Case for Compensating Organ Donors; One Nation Under Therapy (coauthored with Christina Hoff Sommers); and Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience (coauthored with Scott Lilienfeld), which was a 2014 finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize in Science. Website: sallysatelmd.com Twitter: @slsatel

World renowned psychological skeptic and evidence-based treatment advocate Scott Lilienfeld joins us to explore the topic of pseudoscience and misleading claims in the field of mental health. *** PATREON *** http://patreon.com/myownworstenemy *** BOOKS MENTIONED *** "50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology" by Scott Lilienfeld (co-author) https://amzn.to/2zoyQff "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience" by Scott Lilienfeld (co-author)https://amzn.to/2Nx28ks "Facts and Fictions in Mental Health" by Scott Lilienfeld (co-author) https://amzn.to/2MR4ZQ4 "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan *** SOCIAL MEDIA *** Facebook: http://facebook.com/myownworstenemyorg Twitter: http://twitter.com/dannydwhittaker *** CREDITS *** Theme Music: Falling Down by Ryan Little http://youtube.com/user/TheR4C2010 Podcast Image: DJ Spiess http://www.fermentarium.com/ DISCLAIMER: My Own Worst Enemy is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk and affiliated sites.

Episode 68 #psychedpodcast is excited to talk about this great topic! Tune in live to ask questions and make comments. http://psychology.emory.edu/home/people/faculty/lilienfeld-scott.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522609/?platform=hootsuite https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lilienfeld Dr. Lilienfeld argues that there is a large and growing difference between traditional psychology and “pop psychology”, and that personal experiences, intuition and common sense fuel pop psychology and are compelling… Continue reading Episode 68 – Psychological Myths Relevant to School Psychology with Dr. Scott Lilienfeld

What makes a serial killer? What drives them to kill again and again? To find out the truth about this ghastly lot, we talked to forensic psychologist Prof. Eric Hickey, criminologist Ass. Prof. Wayne Petherick, and psychiatrist Prof. Gwen Adshead. Check out the full transcript here: http://bit.ly/34aoJXG Note: in this episode we discuss homicide, and sexual violence. Please take care when listening to the show, and here are some resources: National Mental Health Helpline: 1-800-662-HELP (4357). National Hotline for Crime Victims 1-855-4-VICTIM (1-855-484-2846) National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) Selected readings:Dr. Mike Aamodt’s database of serial killers at Radford UniversityThis study looked at more than 1000 juvenile offenders to find out what was different about those who became killers All sorts of statistics for some of the common behaviors of serial killersThis paper digs into some of the more unusual “ritualistic” behavior of serial killers  Credits:  This Episode has been produced by Shruti Ravindran, Meryl Horn, Rose Rimler and Wendy Zukerman. Our senior producer is Kaitlyn Sawrey. We’re edited by Blythe Terrell. Additional editing help from Alex Blumberg. Fact Checking by Michelle Harris. Music by Bobby Lord and Emma Munger. Sound Design and mix by Emma Munger. A big thanks to all of the other academics who helped us out, including Dr. Mike Aamodt, Dr. Ann Burgess, Dr. Scott Lilienfeld, Dr. Devon Polaschek, Dr. Kori Ryan, Dr. Kim Rossmo, Dr. David Finkelhor, Dr. David Keatley, Dr. Jennifer Lansford, Dr. Karen Franklin, Dr. Michael Maltz, Dr. Gabrielle Salfati, Dr. Claire Ferguson, Dr. Sandra Taylor, and Katherine Ramsland. Extra thanks to Sarah McVeigh, Christopher Suter, Frank Lopez, Rose Reid, the Zukerman Family, and Joseph Lavelle Wilson, and everyone at Gimlet who listened and gave thoughts.

Join Scott and I for an in-depth discussion on today's topics: psychological myths, neuroscience, and mental illness. Learn how many of the things you believe might be mythology and, if they're false, how many of them might be harmful. Get full show notes and more information here: https://bit.ly/2IGlv4p

Scott Lilienfeld is professor of psychology at Emory University. Here, he talks about his 2016 article evaluating the psychological literature on microaggressions and his 2017 article about revoking the Goldwater rule. Scott is an Association for Psychological Science fellow, and he has published numerous studies in personality psychology, social psychology, political psychology, and clinical psychology. He also has an interest in debunking popular myths. His popular books include Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience and 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. Timeline: 1:06 The history behind Scott’s micro-aggressions critique 7:01 Two big weaknesses in research studies 15:23 Real-world implications 20:05 Reactions to the article 26:05 The Goldwater Rule, and revoking it in 2017   You can learn more Scott Lilienfeld at his website.  A gated copy of his paper on micro-aggressions, entitled “Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence” is here. And it is summarized in this blog post by Musa Al-Gharbi.  His paper on the Goldwater is here. Selected Quote: “One big criticism concerns the nature of the construct of micro-aggressions itself. Do we understand what it is? And one of the points I raise is that even though there’s something there, it’s so vague and so nebulous, it could, in principle, include almost anything that could offend almost anyone. And I think that’s part of the problem. It lends itself to too much abuse, too much misunderstanding.“   Other episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy.

Buck talks Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea. Prof. Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University joins us to talk about Microaggressions. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comFollow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Buck talks Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea. Prof. Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University joins us to talk about Microaggressions. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In this episode, we talk with Dr. Scott O Lilienfeld, author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Myths-Popular-Psychology-Misconceptions/dp/1405131128). Dr. Lilienfeld is Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia (USA). Dr. Lilienfeld is Editor of Clinical Psychological Science, Associate Editor of the Archives of Scientific Psychology, and President-Elect of the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology.

Overview of the upcoming Make Belief series, touching on topics such as love, the brain, diet, political leaders, religion, and critical thinking. Contributors in order of appearance: Mark Ledoux, Julia Galef, David Wolpe, Steven Novella, Michael Shermer, Andrew Newberg, James Giordano, Tom Asacker, Simone Wright, Kayt Sukel, James Fallon, Herbert Benson, Tori Christman, Scott Lilienfeld, Paul Offit, Michael Dedora, Billy Demoss, Jeffrey Anderson, Bridget Hedison.

Overview of the upcoming Make Belief series, touching on topics such as love, the brain, diet, political leaders, religion, and critical thinking. Contributors in order of appearance: Mark Ledoux, Julia Galef, David Wolpe, Steven Novella, Michael Shermer, Andrew Newberg, James Giordano, Tom Asacker, Simone Wright, Kayt Sukel, James Fallon, Herbert Benson, Tori Christman, Scott Lilienfeld, Paul Offit, Michael Dedora, Billy Demoss, Jeffrey Anderson, Bridget Hedison.

What personality traits make for successful politicians? What contributes to political partisanship? In this heated election season, come join Dr. Alan Abramowitz (Political Science) and Dr. Scott Lilienfeld (Psychology) for a conversation about the factors influencing presidential elections from the standpoint of both voters and candidates. Dr. Abramowitz will discuss the growing political partisanship of the American electorate, and its potential sociological and political sources. Dr. Lilienfeld will discuss psychohistorical research on how personality variables (e.g., narcissism, extraversion, antagonism) among U.S. Presidents (and other leaders) predict their success and failure, as well as how such variables might shape voter choices.

Do you think you're using the words "control group" correctly? You're probably not. In fact, you're probably also getting these terms wrong as well: "truth serum", "lie detector", "bystander apathy", "personality type", Oxytocin, "closure" and even the "scientific method"? In this episode I review some of the points made by Scott Lilienfeld and his colleagues regarding scientific terms that you're probably using incorrectly.

What can we learn from brain imaging, and what are its limits? Drs. Gregory Berns and Scott Lilienfeld will discuss – and debate – the promise and perils of brain imaging with regard to mind-reading, neuromarketing, lie detection, criminal responsibility, and psychiatric diagnosis. More broadly, they will explore scientific and ethical controversies concerning neuroimaging, and strive to separate fact from fiction in both popular and academic coverage of this technology. (March 27, 2014)

What can we learn from brain imaging, and what are its limits? Drs. Gregory Berns and Scott Lilienfeld will discuss – and debate – the promise and perils of brain imaging with regard to mind-reading, neuromarketing, lie detection, criminal responsibility, and psychiatric diagnosis. More broadly, they will explore scientific and ethical controversies concerning neuroimaging, and strive to separate fact from fiction in both popular and academic coverage of this technology. (March 27, 2014)

It seems like a week can't go by without a news story about how neuroscience has discovered the neurological basis of love, morality, addiction, you name it. Yet how much explanatory power does neuroscience really have -- and are we putting too much trust in its findings? On this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia explore these questions with psychiatrist Sally Satel and professor of psychology Scott O. Lilienfeld, the authors of "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience."

Dr. Scott Lilienfeld is Professor of Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta. Scott is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a Consulting Editor for Skeptical Inquirer and the Founder and Editor of the CSI journal Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. He’s a regular contributor to Scientific American Mind, and is Psychology Today's Skeptical Psychologist, where he investigates questionable, controversial, and novel claims in psychology. His principal areas of research include evidence-based practices in psychology and the challenges posed by pseudoscience to clinical psychology. In this conversation with Karen Stollznow, Scott discusses his latest book, 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior, co-written with Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio and the late Barry Beyerstein. The book treats a staggering 300 urban legends, myths and misconceptions; this is the “Mythbusters” of psychology. Scott explains the difference between psychology and “pop psychology”, which is fraught with what he calls “psychomythology”. He discusses how myths develop and disseminate, and he reports that even the experts can be deceived by these commonly-held beliefs. These myths are unpredictable blends of fact and (mostly) fiction, but as we find out, fact is sometimes even stranger than fiction. Scott busts some surprising myths, and argues for the importance of myth busting. When we believe in these myths there are often real-world consequences, but debunking itself carries risks. He discusses how to counter these myths and the “unsinkable ducks”, and how to critically evaluate future claims as we’re presented with them. Aiming to “demystify psychology”, Scott is an advocate for the effective communication of psychology to the public, and also for science-based psychology. He considers the unreliability of our intuition, gut-feelings and our (not-so) common sense, and how science is “uncommon sense”. Scott admits that human experience makes us all armchair psychologists, and we are all susceptible to Dr. Phil-psychology and self-help books. But self-help is more often hindrance than help. Backed up by science, this book is the real self-help.

Dr. Scott Lilienfeld is a professor of psychology at Emory University and editor of Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. He is also co-author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology and a contributing blogger at Psychology Today. In what is sure to be one of our most controversial episodes, Dr. Lilienfeld not only explores the myth that hypnosis is an appropriate memory retrieval tool for alien abduction research... HE DESTROYS IT.In the process, we examine the Emma Woods/David Jacobs debacle that seems every bit as surreal as the alien abduction stories in Jacobs' books. Is his behavior appropriate? Is this what happens when a man gets too absorbed in his own conclusions about the unknown? Hear Dr. Lilienfeld's initial impressions.If you know of anyone who is thinking about undergoing hypnosis, please direct them here. This should be required listening for anyone who wants to undergo it or practice it.

I interview Dr. Scott Lilienfeld, author of 50 Myths of Popular Psychology and we talk about, a) whether the polygraph actually works, b) whether women really talk more than men, c) does handwriting analysis reveals your personality and d) when you're taking a multiple choice test should you change your first answer or leave it alone? Along the way we also talk about whether the full moon really does make people act strangely (and cause more dog bites). Finally, Dr. Lilienfeld provides his opinion on whether psychotherapists need to be more up-to-date on the scientific research behind the various types of psychotherapy.

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing - what is it about this type of psychotherapy that draws such criticism? In this episode I interview Dr. Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University. Dr.... Show notes and more available at http://www.thepsychfiles.com