And on the other side of the coin: You don't find it rather ironic that you discount experiential self-reporting in this thread, yet psychology relies on it so heavily?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_inventory#Problems
That is not what the post I replied to said, and I especially want a citation for the "bottling things up" portion.
>You don't find it rather ironic that you discount experiential self-reporting in this thread, yet psychology relies on it so heavily?
I don't see any irony once we remove the oversimplifications. It's a terrible data source so we need a whole lot of data points and careful collection to get anything meaningful. We can still use it, but we very much need to discount single anecdotes and going by what's 'evident' without checking.
The studies on depression and stress are many and numerous, although they are neuroscientific in nature (actual science).
No offence dude, but the field of psychology is to neuroscience as alchemy is to chemistry and physics. Welcome to the twenty-first century.
PS: Psychology has done a pretty good job of getting depression wrong at every possible turn. And people like me have been the butt of their half-baked ideas since the beginning. gives psychology the middle finger
You're reading way too far into that. If something brings you from -100 to -95 it's notable but not world-changing. yamike didn't say anything about actually fixing the depression, just adding a slight bit of happiness.
> I think it's evident
Are you basing that on anything? There's a reason we're actually doing this study and not just reasoning out the answer.