She just doesn't finish the thought; which makes it useless as advice. Her $19.99 example is not wrong, but she misses to tell everyone what the correct approach is. She hints at it - "habit formation".
I'm thinking $20, whenever I see $19.99. I think that's what she's getting at. It's not enough to know that $19.99 is a trick, you have to actively counter-condition yourself.
The question is how much she tries to mandate that conditioning or whether she leaves it to everyone else to choose which way and about what they want to condition themselves.
Maybe; I'm not in any position to assess that. But I know the feeling. Just hearing psych. Prof from Harvard or the likes, my first thought is always "ok, what gender-study bs is this now?".
What about your mentor? Confronted him with your doubts? Sounds like he would understand and handle it appropriately.
Well, if you had a breakdown, you'd be at her (the Prof. who wrote what you linked) door kicking and screaming, right now. You don't seem to have it that bad.
I can only give you the tip I already hinted at: I'm always looking for those little jabs and nudges. Does the speaker give you neutral information and wait for questions or do they try to answer all questions before they are asked or, even worse, do they use those little nudges ("It's better you do, or else...").
A psychologist without alternative motives knows that what they say is never true for everyone out there. Like me with the $19.99; I can't remember having ever thought anything else than $20 to that, i.e. while her theory might be true, it seemingly wasn't for me. Well, in that very particular case, actually. I'm sure I'm falling for heaps of other tricks.
I would just keep listening and then you choose what to try; whatever you feel makes sense to you (and your wife).
Knowing IS half the battle. Action is the other half.
I'm a Vet. This is what we do. Research (Intel), research analysis & plan development, action (combat/non combat operations), after action report, op analysis and evaluation. Notice the circle of events starts with knowing (research/analysis), action follows, back to knowing(research/analysis), then on to action again.
EVERY op is planned and acted out in this fashion. Training, Combat, Construction, etc.
Your "happiness" "professor" is an idiot who's probably never had a real job a day in her life and probably hasn't had any real world experience applying what she teaches. I found this to be the case 90% of the time in college. As a 40 yr old Freshman, this didn't bode well for me.
I've considered for some time the issues you seem to have (fortunately) developed an allergy to. For a while, I felt allergic, but couldn't pin down what was bugging me.
The article linked is what I'd call a mild version of a discourse which leads much further. To be brief I won't address the details of that whole journey.
Since you ask about identifying propaganda, the key part of the article linked is this: "This is a lesson that therapy has taken to heart, but one that "pure science" continues to neglect.".
primary alarm bell: the subtle disparagement of "pure science". This signifies a mistrust of rationality and evidence-based reasoning, and ultimately, the pursuit of objective truth.
Also, the linked article is badly argued. The idea that knowing is "half" the battle is nowhere disproved. Of course, it is difficult to quantify respective portions of hypothetical battles in abstract ways! But that's kind of the point of using a shortcut like "knowing is half the battle" in the first place.
Surely knowing is some quantity of the battle? Then what quantity is it? If it can't be defined, then is it really true that "pure science" would be behind a 50% proposition that couldn't be supported? And what do we do about it anyway? What's the rest of this article's battle?
hence the second alarm-bell: vagueness. The article applies a firm conclusion to an ill-defined argument. The fallacy against which the article purports to argue is not well-defined, so neither is the counter-argument.
There are further alarm bells but those are the main ones I'd pick. I don't know what else is in the course (though I'd be interested to see, based on this). But I can say that this part is veering toward bullshit of the kind that goes further, ultimately undermining people's confidence in truth. Worse, making them feel self-righteous about that position. Even worse, using people with good intentions to distribute a hidden agenda.
She just doesn't finish the thought; which makes it useless as advice. Her $19.99 example is not wrong, but she misses to tell everyone what the correct approach is. She hints at it - "habit formation".
I'm thinking $20, whenever I see $19.99. I think that's what she's getting at. It's not enough to know that $19.99 is a trick, you have to actively counter-condition yourself.
The question is how much she tries to mandate that conditioning or whether she leaves it to everyone else to choose which way and about what they want to condition themselves.
Maybe; I'm not in any position to assess that. But I know the feeling. Just hearing psych. Prof from Harvard or the likes, my first thought is always "ok, what gender-study bs is this now?".
What about your mentor? Confronted him with your doubts? Sounds like he would understand and handle it appropriately.
Well, if you had a breakdown, you'd be at her (the Prof. who wrote what you linked) door kicking and screaming, right now. You don't seem to have it that bad.
I can only give you the tip I already hinted at: I'm always looking for those little jabs and nudges. Does the speaker give you neutral information and wait for questions or do they try to answer all questions before they are asked or, even worse, do they use those little nudges ("It's better you do, or else...").
A psychologist without alternative motives knows that what they say is never true for everyone out there. Like me with the $19.99; I can't remember having ever thought anything else than $20 to that, i.e. while her theory might be true, it seemingly wasn't for me. Well, in that very particular case, actually. I'm sure I'm falling for heaps of other tricks.
I would just keep listening and then you choose what to try; whatever you feel makes sense to you (and your wife).
Knowing IS half the battle. Action is the other half.
I'm a Vet. This is what we do. Research (Intel), research analysis & plan development, action (combat/non combat operations), after action report, op analysis and evaluation. Notice the circle of events starts with knowing (research/analysis), action follows, back to knowing(research/analysis), then on to action again.
EVERY op is planned and acted out in this fashion. Training, Combat, Construction, etc.
Your "happiness" "professor" is an idiot who's probably never had a real job a day in her life and probably hasn't had any real world experience applying what she teaches. I found this to be the case 90% of the time in college. As a 40 yr old Freshman, this didn't bode well for me.
I've considered for some time the issues you seem to have (fortunately) developed an allergy to. For a while, I felt allergic, but couldn't pin down what was bugging me.
The article linked is what I'd call a mild version of a discourse which leads much further. To be brief I won't address the details of that whole journey. Since you ask about identifying propaganda, the key part of the article linked is this: "This is a lesson that therapy has taken to heart, but one that "pure science" continues to neglect.".
primary alarm bell: the subtle disparagement of "pure science". This signifies a mistrust of rationality and evidence-based reasoning, and ultimately, the pursuit of objective truth.
Also, the linked article is badly argued. The idea that knowing is "half" the battle is nowhere disproved. Of course, it is difficult to quantify respective portions of hypothetical battles in abstract ways! But that's kind of the point of using a shortcut like "knowing is half the battle" in the first place.
Surely knowing is some quantity of the battle? Then what quantity is it? If it can't be defined, then is it really true that "pure science" would be behind a 50% proposition that couldn't be supported? And what do we do about it anyway? What's the rest of this article's battle?
hence the second alarm-bell: vagueness. The article applies a firm conclusion to an ill-defined argument. The fallacy against which the article purports to argue is not well-defined, so neither is the counter-argument.
There are further alarm bells but those are the main ones I'd pick. I don't know what else is in the course (though I'd be interested to see, based on this). But I can say that this part is veering toward bullshit of the kind that goes further, ultimately undermining people's confidence in truth. Worse, making them feel self-righteous about that position. Even worse, using people with good intentions to distribute a hidden agenda.