Previously, as in the last episode, the term pseudoscience was applied to the 'social studies arena'. Pseudo is acceptable, but herein, it refers to that which has not been proven to exist by profound laboratory analysis, such as with microscopic exactness. These notions rely on opinion, guesswork, and sometimes gossip and rumor. Theoretical constructs propose the basis for belief systems. Within this domain and sub-domains, the collegiate enclaves of the liberal arts enjoy adventures in metaphysics. Four of those philosophies, where some pretend to be 'sciences' and 'scientists', are very vocal. These include the usual suspects: criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology. Excerpt from newest essay: Previously, as in the last episode, the term pseudoscience was applied to the 'social studies arena'. Pseudo is acceptable, but herein, it refers to that which has not been proven to exist by profound laboratory analysis, such as with microscopic exactness. These notions rely on opinion, guesswork, and sometimes gossip and rumor. Theoretical constructs propose the basis for belief systems. Within this domain and sub-domains, the collegiate enclaves of the liberal arts enjoy adventures in metaphysics. Four of those philosophies, where some pretend to be 'sciences' and 'scientists', are very vocal. These include the usual suspects: criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology. This is the realm of academia where you can make up stuff, write and publish an article about it, and people will believe it. Yet, there is no viable scientific authenticity or molecular technical precision in provability. And, in a court of law, the manifestations of such devolvement to opinion are debatable. Opinion, gossip, and rumor are not highly evidentiary.
This intellectual challenge of debunking pseudoscience is what keeps the field of critical analysis alive and thriving, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based research. As to the preceding, the contrast starkly relates to the real sciences. These are the hard-core efforts to address natural phenomena and materialistic configurations from scientific domains such as astrophysics, biology, chemistry, and physics. Regarding the dimensional complexities of the anomalous mental phenomenon, or AMP, as referred to by the U.S. intelligence community, evidentiary substantiation remains elusive. Referencing the fascinating quests in the 'social studies arena' on metaphorical applications for tomfoolery is what some call the 'CSI Effect'. A reference to fictional television drama, or better yet, the unreality of reality television, is the illusion of magical thinking. Actors can say stupid things from erroneous scriptwriting. The danger, of course, is when the public believes it is true when it is not true.
Originally described as the impact fictional crime shows potentially have on jurors, the idea has been expanded to the mainstream. Idiotic thinking relies on conjecture, opinion, rumor, and gossip rather than credible facts, evidence, and forensic laboratory analysis. More direct and brash is the admonition that stupid thinking does not help an investigative process. Hastily drawn generalizations for the satiation of subjective validation devolve the discovery efforts for provability. Nebulous notions and specious conjecture perpetuate fraudulent theories that later become public policy. Fallacies of inference confuse the final conjecture.
This is where AMP potentially becomes a psychic realm in which ongoing research is necessary. Within this context comes explorations into paranormal phenomena, supernatural experiences, and extraterrestrial visitations. In the Gonzo Universe, suggesting tongue-in-cheek fun, the spheres of the three P's perpetrate an amazing array of magical thinking. Of such quests in pseudoscience (inside and outside the specters of academia), the planetary, the paranormal, and psychic perpetrations are exciting adventures in supernatural expectations. With salacious stimulation, the amative allure is extraordinarily seductive. Regardless of mainstream media's infantile illusions (social media inclusive), the real adventurous schemes are cloaked in the trenchcoated gambits of academia. As alluded to earlier, the "social studies arena" of academia's not-so-hallowed halls hosts the mysteries of human thinking.
And, in that showmanship, carry out one sleight of hand magical means of entertainment in one form after another. For the dashingly daring salaciousness of one fanciful realm, that of "anomalistic psychology", paranormal marvels suggest, or at least invited, realistic explanations. Such inclinations lend toward psychodynamic instigations. Observers, for instance, may lean toward the cognitive bias of personal imposition. Some investigators realize that the observer typically influences his or her observations. This, of course, leads down the path of self-justification and easily simplistic rationalization. Reality may discourage some from their path toward the secure confirmation of evidentiary authenticity. Several factors, often selfishly arrogant, preclude honest, forthright efficacy. Ivory Towers is rife with such self-serving arrogance. One reflection of wishful thinking, beyond the constraints of scientific validation, is the viewpoint of "emotional intelligence". This is a good example of “psychobabble”.
Just because someone has a Ph.D. in the "social studies arena" and purports something to be true does not mean that "truth" exists. On the contrary, no worry and no fret; the reality is that foolishness abounds even with supposedly "smart people". Seemingly intelligent members of the human species can act stupidly. If surveys show that 90% of Americans believe in some aspect of the three Ps, then there is plenty of room for foolishness and falsehoods. Then again, survey suggestions and implications reflect sampling, not the entire population. Also, there is the wild card of exceptionality. There are always exceptions. Wiser and more insightful, self-evolving, mature, and differentiated personalities may struggle to be skeptical. Nonetheless, "emotional intelligence" comes to mind at this point. In a recent flocking of faculty at a local university in the American South, a training session on student learning ensued.
Among the presenters, a psychic, no wait, a psychologist presented the academic necessity of teaching "emotional intelligence". Aside from counterarguments regarding academic freedom, biased philosophical perspectives, scientific confirmation, etc., the concept is fascinating. Perhaps it is a distant relative to the feel-good extremes of "emotional freedom" or, better yet, emotional reactivity. Where facts are relegated second place to feelings, as taught in recent years in realms of academia, such is the hoax that hope springs eternal. In the labors of subjective validation, the lust is in the fiction of smug piety for the slushy rush of warm cascades of confirmation bias. Other gifts, like fortune telling and criminal profiling, arrive at the family picnic. Maybe the need is deeper than what one can bear in a primal existence in modern society. Like an emotional "Ponzi scheme", the more you get others to believe, the more elated you feel. A multi-level marketing scheme to ensure one's view is the only view.
And typically, that is how the "social studies arena" works. One school of thought is more sacred than another, but no school of thought has all the answers. Write a paper, promote a book, publish or perish, and catch others on the hook. As one motivational speaker offers, the myth of emotional intelligence falls short in confrontation with more powerful attributes of interpersonal achievement and success. It is a weak proposition, sometimes called a "soft art" in dealing with oneself and others. Far too many take the concept to extremes and thereby render their surrender to more powerful personalities. While it might be nice, cute, and fun to express self-awareness, quite another is to be technically and tactically competent. Such perspectives can be amusing in an academic setting. Application in the real world is career-field dependent. Feel good and gooey on the therapy couch, but in confronting criminals in adverse conditions, you must switch psychic gears in a heartbeat. The common sense of reality is hardcore.
Regarding first responder tactical operations, seeing how that plays out in life-and-death confrontations is entertaining. Similarly, how about the "cutthroat", "dog-eat-dog", and " off with their heads" harsh realities of the corporate world? Not to forget, of course, the "close touchy-feely" environs of transnational organized crime. As drug cartels south of the U.S. border traffic in human cargo, terrorism, etc., certainly "emotional intelligence" helps. Accordingly, an author and researcher from the same field of study (i.e., psychology) challenge the notion of "emotional intelligence". Emphatically, the analysts insist there is no such thing as "emotional intelligence". Going further and writing for a major national news service in 2017, the writer points out that one cannot simply invent a trait and assume its validity.
