Soft Science

Firstly let me state that I see a psychiatrist on a regular basis -- and I actually find talking with him extremely helpful. This post is not really anti-psych in that respect.

I recently made a major change in my life with regards to school, I had attempted 3 years of Engineering, but was unable to finish the program. So, I had an educational evaluation done to help me guide my decision about where to go next in life. This test was supposed to reveal all kind of things about my personality and learning habits.

The test was 6 hours long and involved numerous tests with all kinds of abbreviations. All seemingly very scientific. In fact, the results of the IQ test and the conclusions drawn from it I found fairly accurate, reflecting well on my own opinions of my abilities and habits. Although not totally correct, it was eerily accurate. However, apparently, I have lived my entire life with two major learning disorders:

1] Disorder of Written Expression
2] Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder

I have no delusions about my writing ability, and I am well aware of my reliance on things like spell check, and I'm sure that my grammar is atrocious. It was one of the major driving factors in choosing a major with as little writing as possible. Nevertheless, when I read up on these disorders the descriptions did not seem to fit anything I have ever experienced in my life.

For example, apparently I am unable to organize my words into meaningful thoughts, I can't form letters correctly, and I can't write words from diction. In my entire High school and post secondary career I never received extremely poor grades in writing tasks. In fact, in my last semester I received extremely high marks on my History essays. I'm not sure how this applies to me. Writing doesn't come easy to me, but I can organize my words, and I can certainly spew out what other people have said -- I mean, I passed my first year psychology class.

Worse is the mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. Apparently this disorder can either be biological, or caused by brain damage. This relates to the ability to understand what people are saying, and the ability to communicate my thoughts to other people. I have never in my entire life, all 22 years, experienced anything that would lead me to believe that I suffer from something so severe. I had to give speeches in school, hell I even passed my communications for Engineers class with flying colors.

The diagnosis apparently comes from the statistical deviation that exists from my IQ scores to my ability scores on various tests. My IQ scores were well above average, and my ability scores were only somewhat above average and one, a writing piece, apparently was dropped numerous points because I had erased something on my paper, and frankly, I didn't really put all that much effort into my little paragraph. Even though my abilities may not be below average, they fall below what my IQ dictates they should be.

Needless to say, the diagnosis was even hard for the diagnostician to say to me with much conviction. Regardless, I am required by law to now have certain accommodations made necessary for me by post-secondary institutions, like extra time and a bib.

During my days in Engineering I had a hard time swallowing any of my Social Science classes as really Science. And by admission they consider themselves a soft science, aka not hard, aka not science. I can't agree more. Scientific results are repeatable, and inputs and outputs are well-defined. If a std between tests is a diagnosis for a disorder then that should be repeatable and accurate across all test subjects. The symptoms should fit the diagnosis.

Are there any folks out there who have had similar experiences with psychological testing? Hell, maybe I am wrong and I really do have these problems, but I don't buy it.

I often wonder about such tests... although they really can tell you a lot about you, there are sooo many variables going on and soo many exceptions to the rule that they become less accurate after age 10. I arbitrarily picked that age but I figure that anything after that is prepubescent and can cause inconsistencies.

A person's brain is very complex. How can you account for so many possibilities? How can you make sure the person is telling you the truth?

What was the name of the test?
Thats another thing.. there are many versions of the same IQ or EQ testes...

BTW, you seem to be able to formulate sentences quite well...

Hmmm. Very interesting posting - I'm not an educational testing type but I've assessed expressive language for experiments, run vocabulary tests for studies of memory and assessed very early language competence tests for school age children. These are not IQ tests. But I'm not unfamiliar with measures.

Frankly I thought your post was well written, well conceived and your expression was competent. Your writing skills are on par with those of many decent University students. Your writing skills are far above the internet norm. So if your post is a good indicator of your writing ability, you're doing ok.

How did you do on receptive piece?

So when You say:

Hell, maybe I am wrong and I really do have these problems, but I don't buy it.

Based on your text above, I don't buy that you're a poor writer. But it's possible your post doesn't have any relation at all to the specific disorder.

Experimental psychology is a science. Therapeutic and practitioner educational psychology does not purport to be a science. But it should be 'supported' by the work of experimenters and testing experts. I believe what you might want to say is that educational psychology has handed you a diagnosis for a disorder, and since there is no reliable support for the diagnostic criteria, the diagnosis we a whole may be faulty. Fine. Also, practitioners vary in their ability to interpret psychological test results, and they vary in their ability to impart interpretations to clients. We can argue about whether psychology is a science at some later date maybe.

I am personally unaware of these particular disorders. But I can glean the meaning from their names. But since I don't want to get it wrong, I'll do a search of my Univ. library and see what I can find out before I open my mouth any more on the measures per se. Stay tuned.

Part of the definition, you said, was this:

The diagnosis apparently comes from the statistical deviation that exists from my IQ scores to my ability scores on various tests.

Can you please specify the names of the tests?

What IQ tests? WAIS, OTIS? Total, linguistic and non linguistic.
What writing tests?
What tests of expressive language?
Look for subscales in the IQ scores.

And so on...all tests. Care to share any scores?

Did you do a Google Search?

Statistically, you could be very high on math, logical reasoning, or spatial tasks, and significantly lower on verbal, I suppose.

If the definition of the disorder were something like 'greater than 1 SD from mean non-verbal score y, or the general score g' then calling it a disorder, I should think, is a bit misleading. But if it's 2 SD or more, then it might justify calling it a deficit. But it would be a deficit 'in relation' to your other abilities.

We need a school psychologist.

Sorry, I totally forgot about this!

Yes, I can share some of my scores. According to my WAIS-III IQ test my Full Scale IQ is 125. The bolded scores that indicate my disability are from something called SATA and TOAL-III

I scored 95 on my Written Language - SATA
I scored 98 on my Listening Comprehension - TOAL-III
I scored 101 on my Oral Expression - TOAL-III

I do have a hard time remembering exact details from things I've read, and I'm terrible with names and phone numbers. Also, I often have to re-organize things I write--I am admittedly an eraser. (Well, not here on the in-ter-net, this is just stream of consciousness.)
Some of the notes that the evaluator made, not verbatim. I,

1] Display erasures in writing tasks
2] Ask for repetition of information
3] Softly whisper to myself (????)
4] Appear to be a lip reader, observes speakers face closely

I don't know, all of these things seems to be somewhat subjective. Yes, when trying to remember some long alphanumeric phrase I whispered it under my breath to help me remember, is that weird? I erased somethings on my page, and I asked her to repeat a couple instructions. I don't know about the last one, I guess I look at people in the face.

Originally, I didn't really care, except as a matter of my own personal ego. But, I figured I'll gladly take some extra time on my assignments. However, I have been going to schools and I feel awful taking advantage of the programs that they have in place for students with disabilities....

I will say that going through the disability offices in all the colleges I have visited is much easier then dealing with the main door. Also, I am pretty much guaranteed to do well with all of this access to tutoring and extra time. I can't help but feel as though there is some nefarious cronyism going on between the lady who conducted my test and the educational consultant I'm working with. I'm sure if 99% of her students go on to succeed in wherever she puts them that is can't look badly.

I plan on having the testing re-done at another institution to see what shakes out. I feel like I'm abusing the system somehow.

As you probably know, your combined scores were circa 2 SD away from your linguistic* scores, so as you mentioned in your first posting, this variance is where the examiner is coming from in assigning that label to you. What were your non linguistic scores?

If you can get this done again for free, I'd do it. Don't sweat it.

You asked

1] Display erasures in writing tasks
2] Ask for repetition of information
3] Softly whisper to myself (????)
4] Appear to be a lip reader, observes speakers face closely

I don't know, all of these things seems to be somewhat subjective.

Naw these ones are quite 'objective', if there is such a thing. Since the subject either does or does not perform the behavior in question, it's a binary observable behavior: Either the subject does or does not ask for repetition, use the eraser, and so on. I've never administered this particular test, but these behaviors are easily operationalized and as 'objective' as is possible.

Sure brain injury could make this happen.

Why were you unable to finish the engineering?

Just make sure that you have your questions written up before hand and then when you meet with the tester/examiner, ask the questions and get the interpretation properly understood.

I admit, though it's not odd to see verbal scores maybe 1 SD away from math and logical reasoning scores, yours are quite disparate. The median is 100, SD=15, so on verbal 50% of WAIS test takers are above your verbal scores, and 50% below, roughly speaking. So in the figure, an hypothetical view of the distribution of scores, your verbal are at mu (u), right in the middle, and your logical, spatial, maybe others, are likely up at the extreme right, bright, under the 2.1% area, 3 theta. The second figure highlights the disparity.




That's my guess.

Winston Churchill was an IQ=100 kind of guy. He did ok. So I wouldn't have a connipshun about the 'disability' status, I'd just exploit it to my advantage and get the best help I could get from the system. That's what it's there to do. And your scores are the justification for the extra help.

Your performance IQ, the other non verbal scores, must've been quite high?

A school psychologist who is running the tests on you next, might be able to give you a brief write up.

* Note I've defined linguistic and verbal scores as SATA, TOAL-III.

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:34 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it is so much of an opposition to the "study of the mind" (which is literally what psychology means in Greek), but rather how people go about studying it and how accurate it is. You have to remember that psychology is in the same state physical medicine was 200 years ago.....it can't make an 100% accurate description on anything. Unlike physics for example, where you can predict with 100% accuracy what happens when you drop a ball (it will hit the ground 100% of the time due to gravity, where as a person's mental disorders can be caused by so many factors).

It isn't just psychology.....it's also psychiatry (which literally means "healing of the mind" in Greek). A lot of people can be involuntarily committed against their will even if they don't agree with their psych. Many people have been through this so being anti-psych can go beyond being oppose to the study but rather to the certain practices of psychologists and psychiatrists (like involuntary commitment).

____________________________________________________

Compra Condizionatori portatili Sex Change Surgery

You have to remember that psychology is in the same state physical medicine was 200 years ago.....it can't make an 100% accurate description on anything.

Actually, two points:

1. Psychology is exactly where medicine is right now. Psychologists publish in medical journals and medical doctors publish in psychology journals. The following abstract shows medical doctors, MDs, working through and writing a psychology paper which was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry:

Regional Cerebral Blood Flow During Script-Driven Imagery in Childhood Sexual Abuse-Related PTSD: A PET Investigation
Lisa M. Shin, Ph.D., Richard J. McNally, Ph.D., Stephen M. Kosslyn, Ph.D., William L. Thompson, B.A., Scott L. Rauch, M.D., Nathaniel M. Alpert, Ph.D., Linda J. Metzger, Ph.D., Natasha B. Lasko, Ph.D., Scott P. Orr, Ph.D., and Roger K. Pitman, M.D.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether anterior limbic and para­limbic regions of the brain are differentially activated during the recollection and imagery of traumatic events in trauma-exposed individuals with and without posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHOD: Positron emission tomography (PET) was used to measure normalized regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) in 16 women with histories of childhood sexual abuse: eight with current PTSD and eight without current PTSD. In separate script-driven imagery conditions, participants recalled and imagined traumatic and neutral autobiographical events. Psychophysiologic responses and subjective ratings of emotional state were measured for each condition. RESULTS: In the traumatic condition versus the neutral control conditions, both groups exhibited regional CBF increases in orbitofrontal cortex and anterior temporal poles; however, these increases were greater in the PTSD group than in the comparison group. The comparison group exhibited regional CBF increases in insular cortex and anterior cingulate gyrus; increases in anterior cingulate gyrus were greater in the comparison group than in the PTSD group. Regional CBF decreases in bilateral anterior frontal regions were greater in the PTSD group than in the comparison group, and only the PTSD group exhibited regional CBF decreases in left inferior frontal gyrus. CONCLUSIONS: The recollection and imagery of traumatic events versus neutral events was accompanied by regional CBF increases in anterior paralimbic regions of the brain in trauma-exposed individuals with and without PTSD. However, the PTSD group had greater increases in orbitofrontal cortex and anterior temporal pole, whereas the comparison group had greater increases in anterior cingulate gyrus.

2. Journals for medicine and psychology describe the same things and have the same tools at their disposal:

Here's an abstract from the Journal of Clinical Oncology (cancer medicine):

CNS involvement in mantle-cell lymphoma

E Montserrat, F Bosch, A Lopez-Guillermo, F Graus, MJ Terol, E Campo and C Rozman
Postgraduate School of Hematology "Farreras Valenti," Barcelona, Spain.

PURPOSE: In non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, CNS involvement is highly dependent on the histology of the lymphoma. Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is a lymphoma type with distinctive histologic, biologic, and clinical features in which CNS involvement has only been rarely described. The purpose of this report is to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of CNS infiltration in patients with MCL seen at a single institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with MCL, who account for 6% of all patients with nodal lymphomas diagnosed and monitored at a university hospital from 1987 to 1994, were studied. Analysis of the incidence of CNS involvement by the disease was performed. RESULTS: Five of 22 patients (22%; exact 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.8% to 45.4%) with MCL developed CNS involvement at a median of 18 months (range, 6 to 59) from diagnosis. All of these patients presented with poor MCL histologic subtypes and advanced disease. When the CNS infiltration became apparent, all of the patients displayed neurologic signs and had lymphoid cells consistent with the diagnosis of MCL in the CSF. In most of the cases, CNS infiltration was part of resistant disease or generalized relapse and had an ominous significance. CONCLUSION: The incidence of CNS involvement in MCL might be higher than previously recognized. The frequency of CNS infiltration in MCL deserves to be investigated in other series and, if a high incidence is confirmed, the risk factors, mechanisms, and clinical implications of such a complication should be further studied.

And here's an abstract from the Journal Psychological Science:

Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of iq in young children
Eric Turkheimer, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D'Onofrio, and Irving I. Gottesman
University of Virginia
Copyright Blackwell Science
ABSTRACT

Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and nonshared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.

Neither abstract is 'less scientific' in terms of it's descriptions than the other.

Now, the Greek take on words does not define whole fields of scientific study, but I 'think' psychology comes from thumos, which is like 'breath', which is likened to 'soul' and it doesn't restrict psychology to the study of the mind only - psychology far more broad, and includes study of behavior too.

Related disciplines and cross fertilization: Philosophy, linguistics, medicine, neuroscience, computer science, anthropology, biology.

I am so excited and it is interesting too...
I must get lot of new information is never hear anywhere...
Thanks for your info...

Tom
________________________
teeter dexii
Seek And Find Games Free Download