Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moont1de t1_iwm6h6w wrote

I don’t even know where to begin with this, but I’ll guess the obvious first comment is that good methods cannot save us from bad hypotheses


FiestaBeans t1_iwmwdm9 wrote

I don't think the researchers understood what Freud was talking about at all. Their test cohort was not at all comparable to the examples given in the summary.


Alaishana t1_iwm9im1 wrote

You'll have to explain your meaning on this one.


Moont1de t1_iwmd9a3 wrote

> People with exceptionally successful careers tend to be healthier than their less successful peers

Is a terrible hypothesis for many reasons


Jewdoughchop t1_iwmivlx wrote

Yeah exactly, genetics, and environment also play a huge role in your health


FuzzyCrocks t1_iwmetih wrote

One does physical labor and the other doesn't have to?


Moont1de t1_iwmf39n wrote

It's more to do with actually defining "exceptionally successful" at a "career" level and then defining "healthier".


tornpentacle t1_iwmndi4 wrote

Physical labor invariably damages the body, it doesn't keep it fit.


FuzzyCrocks t1_iwmnruw wrote

Correct. You live with a damaged body and tell me how fit you are.


tornpentacle t1_iwmo1nn wrote

Believe me, I do, hahaha! It is not the most enjoyable way to be. The years doing physical labor before returning to college were not kind to me.


Praise_the_Ward t1_iwmjzs1 wrote

I wonder how much of this is skewed by modern medicine. Of course rich people are healthier these days, but It wasn't that long ago that being fat, pale, and constantly smoking were cultural signs of being wealthy.

Well, I guess everyone smoked in Freud's time, but that's not my point.


SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwmuv44 wrote

But the hypothesis that they tested was that "Exceptionally successful people are wrecked by their success". What you quoted was rather the results/findings.


Moont1de t1_iwmvtv3 wrote

> "Exceptionally successful people are wrecked by their success"

Also a bad hypothesis for the very same reasons


SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwmwodm wrote

Why is this hypothesis bad? If I was to become exceptionally successful, it seems like important piece of information to know if it's going to wreck me. If I'm ambitious and I want to get that success, could it hurt my health?

People often warn you about these things.


Moont1de t1_iwmxkvp wrote

> It's more to do with actually defining "exceptionally successful" at a "career" level and then defining "healthier".


SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwmz8n1 wrote

What about defining those?


Moont1de t1_iwmztkd wrote

For practical purposes, it is essentially impracticable to test a hypothesis such as this without narrowing down the definitions of these words into smaller parts that are better represented by other words (in the case of this study, "exceptionally well paid" vs. successful). Too many proxies for this to mean anything.


SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwn0yym wrote

Do you mean that the hypothesis would've been better if they used the word "exceptionally well paid" instead of "successful"?

Their full wording was:

> We examined the wrecked-by-success hypothesis. Initially formalized by Sigmund Freud, this hypothesis has become pervasive throughout the humanities, popular press, and modern scientific literature. The hypothesis implies that truly outstanding occupational success often exacts a heavy toll on psychological, interpersonal, and physical well-being.

Not necessarily a hypothesis by them, but examining what Sigmund Freud meant by that hypothesis and whether it's true.


Moont1de t1_iwn1irb wrote

Yes, but there are other things to fix, such as better defining "healthier" (in what timeframe?), and better defining "peers" . Presumably, if you change to exceptionally well-paid, peers would be everyone else that gets paid.

"People who make more money usually present better overall health indicators" doesn't make for a very striking headline, though.


thruster_fuel69 t1_iwn76ht wrote

It's just like, some psychology, man.


Moont1de t1_iwngliw wrote

It’s bad psychology


thruster_fuel69 t1_iwni1ze wrote

Science confirms or refutes obvious things all the time, that's still not bad science, just boring to some.

Isn't that your same point here, that it's boring/pointless, and that makes it bad?


Moont1de t1_iwnixi9 wrote

This is a waste of resources that could've been spent somewhere actually productive for advancing the frontier of human psychological knowledge


thruster_fuel69 t1_iwnkird wrote

Knowing a truth isn't a waste, they add up to greater discoveries. Are you sure it's not a personal grudge against psychology?


Moont1de t1_iwnlv35 wrote

Resources are limited and this has already been studied before, it is entirely wasteful.

It is precisely and exactly why I respect psychology as a field of scholarly work that I am calling this bad psychology