<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Psychology&#8217;s top 10 misguided ideas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mindhacks.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mindhacks.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/</link>
	<description>Neuroscience and psychology news and views.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 15:51:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8289</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This website always crashes Opera broser :-(
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This website always crashes Opera broser <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':-(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8288</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hello, very interesting.
I am not sure if the problem with &quot;Delusions of Grandeur&quot; is with psychoanalysis or many psychoanalysts.
Can you elaborate on the issue of psychoanalysis and its delusions?.
Thanks
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, very interesting.<br />
I am not sure if the problem with &#8220;Delusions of Grandeur&#8221; is with psychoanalysis or many psychoanalysts.<br />
Can you elaborate on the issue of psychoanalysis and its delusions?.<br />
Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8287</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Neuroimaging *could* win the gold rush prize because it is vastly expensive and time consuming, offers (scientific) riches and everyone and their dog wants to be on board the gravy train. Of course studying the brain is a good thing, but if you a) do badly designed experiments b) sacrifice things like correct replication of findings then what you are producing isn&#039;t good science. Not that i think all neuroimaging is bad, i&#039;m just a little skeptical, when i see reports along the lines of &quot;Doing this thing X involves this area of the brain Y&quot; (which is essentially saying &quot;Thinking involves your brain!&quot; but with more jargon)
And it has been said:
&quot;the use of functional imaging to understand the brain is like trying to understand how a car engine works, using only a thermal sensor on a geostationary satellite&quot;
(see here: http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/archives/psychology/what_can_functional_.html)
Jerry Fodor on these things: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n19/fodo01_.html)
Paul Bloom (see http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/archives/psychology/dualism_and_neuroima.html) suggests that part of the popularity of brain imaging is that it appeals to people&#039;s innate dualism. If we haven&#039;t really accepted that our minds have anything to do with our brains, then *any* result which shows up the connection is suprising
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neuroimaging *could* win the gold rush prize because it is vastly expensive and time consuming, offers (scientific) riches and everyone and their dog wants to be on board the gravy train. Of course studying the brain is a good thing, but if you a) do badly designed experiments b) sacrifice things like correct replication of findings then what you are producing isn&#8217;t good science. Not that i think all neuroimaging is bad, i&#8217;m just a little skeptical, when i see reports along the lines of &#8220;Doing this thing X involves this area of the brain Y&#8221; (which is essentially saying &#8220;Thinking involves your brain!&#8221; but with more jargon)<br />
And it has been said:<br />
&#8220;the use of functional imaging to understand the brain is like trying to understand how a car engine works, using only a thermal sensor on a geostationary satellite&#8221;<br />
(see here: <a href="http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/archives/psychology/what_can_functional_.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/archives/psychology/what_can_functional_.html</a>)<br />
Jerry Fodor on these things: <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n19/fodo01_.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n19/fodo01_.html</a>)<br />
Paul Bloom (see <a href="http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/archives/psychology/dualism_and_neuroima.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/archives/psychology/dualism_and_neuroima.html</a>) suggests that part of the popularity of brain imaging is that it appeals to people&#8217;s innate dualism. If we haven&#8217;t really accepted that our minds have anything to do with our brains, then *any* result which shows up the connection is suprising</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8286</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2005 03:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Could you please provide a little more infomration on why Neuroimaging should win the &quot;Scientific Gold-Rush Prize&quot;?  I was under the impression that studying the brain was a good thing...
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could you please provide a little more infomration on why Neuroimaging should win the &#8220;Scientific Gold-Rush Prize&#8221;?  I was under the impression that studying the brain was a good thing&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8285</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2005/07/27/psychologys-top-10-misguided-ideas/#comment-8285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I forgot the &quot;Prize for Theoretical Construct Reification&quot; (which could go to IQ testing)
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I forgot the &#8220;Prize for Theoretical Construct Reification&#8221; (which could go to IQ testing)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
