Thanks for the response. I agree psychological research and publications need much more rigor.
I could pick a bone about how I don’t think it is quite as bad astrology , etc. (which literally has zero science behind), but I see your point.
I suppose I found the article interesting and useful, even if we don’t yet have robust science to support all of the arguments it makes.
Here’s to hoping future developments and research can make meaningful progress towards a deeper and robust understanding of what actually makes us tick :)
Back in high school one of my friends' moms was a semi-professional astrologer. More than once, when visiting his house, she would ask someone she just met for their "birth data", type it into her astrology program, and proceed to blow their minds by telling them all sorts of personal things about their personality just from their chart. She also gave pretty good advice some of the time.
One day we were looking at the computer and somehow got into the settings for the astrology program and we noticed that she had configured it wrong, so that none of the charts she was reading were valid according to the internal logic of astrology. The charts were wrong (not just in the sense that astrology is bullshit, but extra-wrong in the sense that they didn't even conform to the line of bullshit) yet she was "good" at astrology.
FWIW, I think she was just a good psychologist, but didn't know it.
I could pick a bone about how I don’t think it is quite as bad astrology , etc. (which literally has zero science behind), but I see your point.
I suppose I found the article interesting and useful, even if we don’t yet have robust science to support all of the arguments it makes.
Here’s to hoping future developments and research can make meaningful progress towards a deeper and robust understanding of what actually makes us tick :)