User:RDetrie/sandbox


 * “Crummy criterion fallacy”: This fallacy refers to how psychologists would inappropriately explain away the technical aspects of tests rather than incorporate them into the interview, life-history, and other material being presented at case conferences. />
 * “Understanding it makes it normal”: The act of normalizing or excusing a behavior just because you understand the cause or function of it, regardless of its normalcy or appropriateness. For example, a psychologist would be guilty of committing this fallacy if he or she began to see the behavior of criminal clients as normal because of understanding how such behavior came about. />
 * “Assumptions that content and dynamics explain why this person is abnormal”: Those who seek psychological services have certain characteristics associated with the fact they are seeking services. However, not only do they have the characteristics of clients but also characteristics because of being human. To attribute one’s complete life dysfunction to the same attributes that make them a patient is to negate the fact that being a mere human being comes with its own areas of dissatisfaction. />
 * “Identifying the softhearted with the softheaded”: The belief that those who have sincere concern for the suffering (i.e., the softhearted) are often seen as one in the same as those who tend to be wrong in logical and empirical decisions (i.e., softheaded). />
 * “Ad hoc fallacy”: An innate tendency to create explanations after we have been presented with evidence that is consistent with what has now been proven. For example, in clinical psychology, it this comes about through explaining why a patient is the way he or she is based on all the available and relevant evidence is presented. />
 * “Doing it the hard way”: Going about a task in the a more difficult manner when an equivalent easier option exists; particularly in clinical psychology, when extensive instruments or procedures are used that can be difficult and time consuming while the same information can be ascertained through interactive means. />
 * “Social scientists’ anti-biology bias”: Meehl’s belief that social scientists like psychologists, sociologists, and psychiatrists have a tendency to react negatively to biological factors in abnormality, therefore tending to be anti-drug, anti-genetic, and anti-EST. />
 * “Double standard of evidential morals”: When standards for evidence change depending on who is presenting; that is, when oneself is making an argument less evidence is required compared to when someone else is and the same person is far more critical. />