Posts by Gerald Rivera60

brighteagle39 said:What exactly are you trying to convey with this post? Are you arguing that animals are intelligent creatures? That they possess a capacity for reason similar to our own?
Your opening sentence seems completely disconnected from the rest of your argument, mostly because I highly doubt the latter portion is your own original thought. If you are pulling excerpts from a textbook or a specific author, please at least have the courtesy to cite them.

And you. You know. It’s as if they lack basic reason and the ability to think.
A man claims to possess reason... but where exactly is it? Show me.
They are nothing more than concepts—mere fabrications we use to make sense of the world and ourselves.
What exactly defines reason? Is it just another word for consciousness? I struggle to understand how we can definitively claim animals lack it. They possess brains structurally similar to our own, so why wouldn't they possess "consciousness" or "reason"—whatever those terms actually imply? Perhaps their capacity is less developed, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

brighteagle39 said:What exactly are you trying to convey with this post? Are you arguing that animals are intelligent creatures? That they possess a capacity for reason similar to our own?
Your opening sentence seems completely disconnected from the rest of your argument, mostly because I highly doubt the latter portion is your own original thought. If you are pulling excerpts from a textbook or a specific author, please at least have the courtesy to cite them.

I can't give you a direct quote because I didn't sit here transcribing anything. That kind of knowledge isn't handed to you; you pick it up through your college years, deep dives into literature, and just moving through life.
Searching through the EBSCO database doesn't yield much regarding the link between intelligence and narcis disorder, aside from that one specific paper I mentioned earlier—and I already provided the source for that one.

brighteagle39 said:Until there is definitive proof to the contrary, we can't rule out the possibility that we aren't the only intelligent life in outer space.

So, you're suggesting animals aren't intelligent...
But let's not get bogged down in defining intelligence or discussing population numbers. Those metrics are inherently arbitrary and relative.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is heavily influenced by cultural surroundings. This implies that in collectivist societies, the link to intelligence might not be as strong as in individualistic ones. Then again, that's debatable; if an entire society is narcissistic, or conversely, if no one is, the correlation vanishes.
Ultimately, I doubt there is any universal trend at play here, even if one exists.
Narcissists are defined by an inflated sense of their own abilities, knowledge, and achievements, regardless of whether those claims hold water. When reality contradicts their self-perception, they typically rationalize it by claiming the environment is against them or that others are intentionally sabotaging their success.
It is also possible to have a combination of narcissistic disorder and other personality disorders.
For example, consider how someone would behave if they possessed both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders.

According to one classification, narcissistic personalities fall into two categories: Cerebral and Somatic.
Cerebral types focus on their intellectual "achievements," while somatic types prioritize physical strength, stamina, or athletic skill.

Let’s focus on the "Cerebral" narcissists here.

There isn't much research out there regarding the link between intelligence and a narcissistic personality—at least, nothing I could dig up.
One of the few studies we stumbled upon was published in the journal Psychological Reports back in 1988.
The researchers assessed narcissism among 36 members of Mensa using a standard narcissistic personality inventory. They found absolutely no difference in narcissism levels between Mensa members and the average college student population.

We all possess a certain degree of narcissism. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't achieve much in this life.
These traits exist on a spectrum. The real question is simply where we fall on that scale—how narcissistic or antisocial we actually are. It’s a matter of whether we remain within the bounds of what’s healthy and functional, or if we’ve crossed the line into actual pathology.

Noah Sanchez7 and Scott Sanders2... please, just take a breather and get back on track.

Jason Taylor4 said:You edited the post. There wasn't a link there when I replied.
My bad.

I thought it might be useful to include a link that provides a brief overview of the methodology.

The methodology itself isn't actually that complicated. It’s the statistical analysis techniques that have become increasingly complex. You rarely see research relying on straightforward tests like t-tests or ANOVA anymore; nowadays, everything revolves around multivariate techniques. But that’s beside the point. What really matters is that the researcher knows exactly which technique to apply, why they're using it, and where its limitations lie. As for the actual math? The computer handles that.
There’s no mystery to it.

Suppose we want to determine the correlation between personality traits and intelligence. What would our next step be?
The simplest route—and the one most people take—is to just pair an intelligence test with a personality questionnaire.
Suppose we utilized Raven's intelligence test to measure general intelligence alongside Eysenck's EPQ to assess two specific personality dimensions: Neuroticism and extraversion. These traits are relatively well-supported by neurophysiological studies on temperament, effectively corresponding to negative and positive affectivity.
Alright, we have a research problem on our hands: determining how the E and I dimensions correlate with general intelligence. One working hypothesis suggests that Neuroticism will show a negative correlation with intelligence.
So, what’s our next move? We need to select our sample group. To ensure we get a sufficiently homogeneous set, I’m proposing we target healthy individuals between the ages of 25 and 30. At this stage, people are typically at their physical peak. Intelligence hasn't begun its gradual decline, and personality traits haven't fully solidified yet.
Sample size? Honestly, 300 men and 300 women should be plenty.
The margin of error is sitting at about 4%, which is perfectly acceptable.
It’s actually quite straightforward. We gather a group and administer one test followed by another. By rotating which test comes first for different participants, we effectively neutralize any carryover effects from the initial assessment.
Once we have the results, we plug them into the computer and run the analysis using specialized software like SPSS. If you don't have access to those programs, Excel will get the job done.
What was the point of this study? We wanted to tackle a specific question: is there actually a link between intelligence and personality? Using statistical correlation analysis, we found that the correlation between Intelligence and extraversion 0.11 isn't statistically significant. Essentially, there is a 95% probability that no connection exists between these two traits in the general population. However, the relationship between Intelligence and Neuroticism yielded a negative correlation of -0.35, which did prove statistically significant. This means we can be 95% certain that this negative link holds true for the broader population as well. No significant correlation was found between extraversion and Neuroticism. From here, we can pivot to a more granular analysis by separating men and women to see if gender influences these patterns or shifts how strongly these traits intersect.
Now we have the numbers—the actual results that require interpretation. The correlation we've identified suggests that individuals scoring higher in Neuroticism tend to perform poorly on intelligence tests. A potential reason for this could be [bla bla bla]. To be clear, this is a hypothetical study. The data I’m presenting here is purely dummy data, created solely to illustrate the most basic type of psychological research. Correlational research.These methods establish correlations between phenomena, but they don't actually provide answers regarding cause and effect.
You can try to argue causality here, but you have to tread carefully. If you really want to establish cause and effect, an experiment is the way to go—but let's save that discussion for another time.
Generally speaking, correlational studies remain the workhorse methodology across most branches of psychology. The actual processing methods are far more intricate than my brief summary suggests, often involving multiple variables and their complex interactions, but the fundamental logic remains essentially the same as what I described above.

I sent her a link to get things moving... 🤔

Gary Cooper11 said:Goodness gracious, people, why is it so hard to see what I'm trying to get at here?
Let's try to simplify this... everything you mentioned is fine, okay... but do you honestly think I wouldn't find these things interesting if I didn't have an "open channel" in my brain for perceiving complex situations, thoughts, and whatnot? Do you think I wouldn't be able to analyze, learn, and truly grasp the principles upon which the human psyche operates? Or that I wouldn't be able to realistically view situations from multiple angles and use that insight to reach valid conclusions that serve me both professionally and personally?
Do you seriously believe you can learn all of that just by reading textbooks?
And regarding personal inclinations... and the fact that I would always choose to work with individuals struggling with various psychological disorders... look, we aren't going to debate whether we agree or not. My perspective is simply this: if someone possesses the ability or the knowledge regarding how things function, and they have the opportunity to help someone else, why wouldn't they do it?
Isn't it a bit selfish to just remain a passive observer? Or is it perhaps a matter of lacking self-confidence? At the end of the day, you learn so much from those people, right? So, what is the actual purpose of the knowledge you've acquired if you don't use it?
But hey, at the end of the day, it's a matter of personal choice what you decide to do with your life... so, this is JUST my opinion!

I don't think I need some special sensory channel to process numbers. A bit of logic, a grasp of statistics and scientific methodology, and enough psychology to know how to interpret the data should suffice. One must first establish the research problem and the hypothesis. You define the sample size carefully—not too small, or the margin of error becomes massive, but not so large that you waste resources without significantly reducing that error. And so on. Naturally, the sample depends on the subject matter; if the phenomenon being studied is universal and less susceptible to respondent bias, you can get away with a smaller sample.
In other words, you need a smaller sample to identify which brain centers activate during speech than you would to investigate the structure of attitudes.

That’s all I require.
If I'm choosing between two or three factors for phenomenon X, I'll opt for the most parsimonious solution—the simplest one, according to Occam's Razor. If a t-test shows no statistically significant difference between group X and group Y, then there likely isn't a difference in the measured variable.
Et cetera.

I am unsure how familiar you are with scientific methodology, but there isn't much room for subjectivity on the part of the researcher. Even in qualitative studies, the goal is to minimize the "personal equation" in assessment and interpretation. Ideally, multiple researchers work independently, often without even knowing one another. Frequently, the person interacting with the subjects isn't even the lead researcher; they may not even know the true objective of the study, which helps prevent unintentional influence on the participants (double-blind testing).

Here is a link regarding Research Methodology in Psychology and, as the text notes, "Understanding research methodology is fundamental to understanding psychology."

Gary Cooper11 said:Yeah, sure... especially those who don't have enough cash, connections, or heaven knows what else to open up their own private practice... because please... tell me, what other reason would someone have to avoid practicing their profession if they went through the trouble of getting the degree in the first place? What else would cause that kind of aversion?
And one more question... on what basis are you even going to conduct scientific research if you aren't involved in practical application?
And at the end of the day... everything you listed requires actual talent!!!
I'm sticking to my guns: you really have to be born with a calling for psychology!

It’s as simple as this: I have zero interest in treating people with personality disorders, yet I am fascinated by the neurophysiological mechanisms behind behavior and cognition.
Or maybe I don't care for working in an HR department at a big corporation, but I'm deeply interested in how attitudes are acquired and shifted.
Maybe I have no desire to work in a school system, but I want to uncover the mechanics of how autobiographical memory is formed. And so on.
The point is, I don't care about "fixing" people; I care about understanding them—and myself.
That is why I have no interest in traditional practice, particularly within a clinical or similar setting.

I’d argue physics actually tackles these kinds of questions more often than scientific psychology does...
I don't see what's mystical or occult about, say, uncovering the mechanics of long-term memory, social facilitation, or the personality differences between two distinct groups of people.

Psychology finds its roots at the intersection of physiology and philosophy. Wilhelm Wundt, who established the very first psychology lab, was a physiologist, much like Hermann von Helmholtz. Gustav Fechner was a physicist by trade. William James studied physiology but earned his fame as a philosopher. Ivan Pavlov was also a physiologist.
The second pillar of psychology is medicine. Sigmund Freud and most of his followers came from medical backgrounds.
Even today, you can feel this fundamental split between those two origins.
Unfortunately, the figures coming from the medical side tend to be much more influential and widely recognized. Because of that, most people still conflate psychology with psychiatry and psychopathology.
After all, how many people have actually heard of Wilhelm Wundt, Jean Piaget, Alexander Luria, B.F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, Leon Festinger, or Hans Eysenck? They are highly respected within the field and contributed significantly to our understanding of behavior, yet their names rarely ring a bell for the public. On the other hand, you could find almost any educated person who hasn't at least heard of Sigmund Freud. It isn't surprising then that the general public lacks a true grasp of what psychology actually entails.
You see this reflected in the discussion topics on this subforum as well. Discussions regarding psychopathology vastly outnumber threads about, say, memory mechanisms—if such threads even exist.
I understand the tendency, though. It’s just like an automotive forum where you rarely see deep dives into internal combustion principles. Instead, people want to argue over which car is better, how to fix a specific model, or which mechanic to trust. This forum operates under the exact same logic.

Daniel White15 said:Look, if a psychologist is licensed, they actually *can* order tests as an individual. But let's be real—it's pretty rare to see an unemployed psychologist buying up expensive testing kits. Usually, someone employed at an institution (like a local high school, for example) might order specific professional selection tests to take on some freelance work. In those cases, they’re acting as a private contractor rather than working through their employer. Makes sense, right?

By the way, I really appreciate your breakdown regarding how reliable these tests are. My only worry is that very few people here will truly grasp the nuance, since there aren't many folks on this forum who actually work in psychology professionally. Just a bit of advice from a future colleague to a current one: try to keep your answers a bit more down-to-earth and common-sense based! 🙂

Oh, really? I didn't know that... so you're saying I can just moonlighting?
Just kidding. There's no way. My current job is more than enough.

By the way, I appreciate your explanation regarding the reliability of these tests, but I worry very few people grasp that. Hardly anyone on this forum actually works in psychology. Just some friendly advice from a colleague (to a future one): use common sense. 🙂

I was hoping you'd say everyone understands... 🙂
No offense taken regarding the advice... 👍
I am always open to hearing suggestions...
My point was simply this: a test is successful if it results in a higher ratio of successful hires compared to when no testing is performed at all.

wanderingcrane97 said:Is there maybe some psychologist who actually handles the testing and analysis of personality assessments in person? I’m asking because I figure hiring an individual might be a cheaper way to go than bringing in some big firm.

As far as I know, an independent psychologist can't just order these tests on their own.
As for how accurate they actually are... that's a complicated issue.
It all comes down to predictive validity—essentially, how well a test score correlates with actual job performance.
In roles where you can easily quantify success, establishing that correlation is straightforward.
However, for many positions, even measuring performance itself relies on subjective and often arbitrary criteria.
Theoretically, any test is useful if its selection ratio is higher than the base rate.
The base rate is the percentage of successful hires without any screening at all; the selection ratio is the percentage of successes among candidates chosen through a specific process.
The problem is that base rates are rarely known. No US company is going to hire every single applicant just to establish a baseline.
Generally speaking, the more complex a role is—requiring specialized knowledge and skills—the lower the base rate. For simpler jobs, the base rate is higher.

Personality tests—or psychometric questionnaires, if you want to be technical—are typically only accessible to psychologists working within a corporate setting.
The official publisher for these assessments is Slap, based out of Naperville.

When it comes to candidate screening, firms like Hill International and Adecco handle the heavy lifting (though there are others, these two are the industry leaders).

I might need to set up a little poetry nook just to house these songs... 🙂
Anyway, there was some debate going on here regarding ECT treatments—what people call electroshock therapy—and whether it’s still actually used today.
I recently picked up the Psychiatry (textbook), written by Jerald Kay and Christopher Columbus, published in 2006.
It states the following:
Quoting a report from the American Psychiatric Association:
"clinical evidence" (American Psychiatric Association, 2001).
Then it says:
"ECT has evolved from a treatment of first choice to often a treatment of last resort for DSM-IV schizophrenia"
"The American Psychiatric Association Task Force on ECT (American Psychiatric Association, 2001) and the American Psychiatric Association (Enns and Reiss, 1992) identified a role for ECT as a second-line treatment for selected patients with schizophrenia, particularly when associated with a brief duration of illness and/or affective symptoms.
It has been consistently found that the schizophrenic patients most likely to respond to ECT are those with good prognosis signs: mood disturbances, short duration of illness, predominance of positive rather than negative symptoms, and overexcitement (Fink and Sackeim, 1996)."

Naturally, ECT cannot be administered without written consent from the patient or their legal guardian.
"clinical characteristics of ECT compared with other standard psychiatric treatments is the requirement for written informed consent by the patient or legal guardian or other substitute."

briskgull27 said:I know that terrified look all too well.

But then again, some people just don't seem to have it.

Does it mean they're actually afraid for their lives, or are they just scared that this might be contagious? Or maybe both?
Because honestly, if someone can't handle the fact that the world isn't made of rose petals, there might be something fundamentally wrong with them. Then again, if you were 100% "fine" with everything, wouldn't you just be a robot?

Whatever the case, I'd happily eat dirt if it meant I could just move away from here.

That isn't fear born from logic... that's an automatic response.
Try to remember how often you feel fear as a reaction to thinking about a guy like that, versus how often the emotional reaction hits first, followed by the attempt to rationalize it.
I suspect it's the latter far more often.
The fear hits first. The reasoning comes later.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a disgrace... I think people just react with fear when they encounter someone who doesn't fit the mold.
And honestly, I suspect it's the same in "advanced" nations... though I haven't spent much time there.
Even in the West, ignorance and prejudice aren't exactly absent.
Perhaps there are more institutional safety nets over there, or maybe a greater emphasis on social education, but my sense is that neighbors judge you just as harshly here as they would anywhere else.

These are the disease codes according to the American classification, the DSM.
Generally speaking, the system is quite similar to the ICD (which uses F.xx codes for mental health issues)
There are some minor differences, but they are remarkably alike; the only real distinction lies in the specific codes used.

It’s fine... unfortunately, the list of topics was originally pinned at the top, but they’ve all been pulled for technical reasons
I hope to have them back up shortly.

I'm not... I am simply the janitor of this subforum 😢