EveHarrington
VIP Member
Are you responding to the OP? I can't tell. Sorry!
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
Research Research About Myptsd
- Post starter BlueOrange
- Start date
- Status
Are you responding to the OP? I can't tell. Sorry!
- Post starter
- #14
BlueOrange
Diamond Member
Excellent point, I have raised a support ticket, and my 'backpedalling muscles' are ready to kick in the moment that I receive word that I need to use them.
Sorry @EveHarrington thst was in response to your post, I don't agree that the value in this site rests in socialisation alone and could see, theoretically, ways to evaluate the benefits of being here without needing a large scale RCT.
As my post came right after yours, I didn't think I needed to tag you, particularly as I was contributing to a wider discussing rather than wanting to debate with you specifically.
@Friday, in my view this discussion is entirely hypothetical for all the reasons you note - no research or evaluation of the site could happen without the permission of @anthony as owner and @joeylittle as admin and for lots of reasons may not be desirable. I think it's fine to talk about the possibility though and didn't read @BlueOrange's comments as anything other than thinking out loud.
As my post came right after yours, I didn't think I needed to tag you, particularly as I was contributing to a wider discussing rather than wanting to debate with you specifically.
@Friday, in my view this discussion is entirely hypothetical for all the reasons you note - no research or evaluation of the site could happen without the permission of @anthony as owner and @joeylittle as admin and for lots of reasons may not be desirable. I think it's fine to talk about the possibility though and didn't read @BlueOrange's comments as anything other than thinking out loud.
- Post starter
- #16
BlueOrange
Diamond Member
I agree. In the end, if AA brings people together in a way that helps, then it helps. Research is getting relatively enlightened, and it's much less about insisting that everything fit into narrow models than it used to be.
- Post starter
- #17
BlueOrange
Diamond Member
I realize I should also try and answer this question.
I think that it would be awesome if this site was able to attract funding, and there are government and non-government sources of funding that could well kick in if there was an evidence base.
I think that we underestimate the value of places like this one, and it would be nice to see things be recognized.
I'd like people who need to know about this place to get told about it (although I understand that there's a 'resource strain' issue here), and an evidence base would make that more likely.
- Admin
- #18
anthony
Founder
This site receives plenty of attention from those who need to find it, i.e. just the last 7 days worth of traffic, replicate it per week:
Most books I read on trauma and especially anything to do with PTSD, nowadays, mention this site too as a resource for peer support.
Large global news sites have referenced this site in stories over the years. PTSD is a niche, and within that niche, this website does pretty well.
How so?
- Post starter
- #19
BlueOrange
Diamond Member
@anthony , thanks for the reply.
I guess I should have said that I 'anticipate a possible resource strain issue'. I know that there have been times when moderators, admins and other community members have been overworked. I know that new members do have a potential to be disruptive if there aren't enough experienced members available to help them orient themselves. (I have a recollection of being a disruptive resource-drain myself.)
I think it's useful to acknowledge the legitimacy of concerns that people have about my behaviour when it comes to recommending this site for professional use, and I think it's appropriate for me to commit myself to cooperating with any requirements that the admins might have. Beyond that, I don't believe that I should discuss any correspondence that might (or might not) be occurring within a support ticket.
I guess I should have said that I 'anticipate a possible resource strain issue'. I know that there have been times when moderators, admins and other community members have been overworked. I know that new members do have a potential to be disruptive if there aren't enough experienced members available to help them orient themselves. (I have a recollection of being a disruptive resource-drain myself.)
I think it's useful to acknowledge the legitimacy of concerns that people have about my behaviour when it comes to recommending this site for professional use, and I think it's appropriate for me to commit myself to cooperating with any requirements that the admins might have. Beyond that, I don't believe that I should discuss any correspondence that might (or might not) be occurring within a support ticket.
EveHarrington
VIP Member
Well you're arguing about a point I didn't even make. Please re-read what I said and then re-read what you said and then I hope you realize that I never said that the ONLY value in this site is in socialization. My words were twisted by you and you didn't understand much of what I actually said. In the future if you don't understand what I write please ask so that I can clarify rather than assuming incorrectly. I realize that we live in different cultures and I write what I write based on my personal experiences in the medical and scientific community of the country in which I live. Thanks!
- Post starter
- #21
BlueOrange
Diamond Member
There's a particular book on general mental health that I know of, that is going to feature an expanded section on PTSD in the new edition that comes out next year. I'd like it to mention this site.
I'm not arguing at all @EveHarrington, nor am I trying to twist your words. It might have been better for me to say I disagree that socialisation is the easiest way to evaluate benefit from involvement in this site, which is what I read in your post.
I don't agree with you saying that we should "fall back on the widely held notion that socialisation is indeed good for sufferers and that this is a good form of socialisation", because I think we could look much more widely and there may be benefits in doing so somewhere down the line. In terms of evaluation "X is good, this place does X and is therefore good" isn't a plausible stance, in my view.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or asking you to change you're view point, or asking you to agree with me. On a discussion forum people will have different viewpoints, that's all.
I don't agree with you saying that we should "fall back on the widely held notion that socialisation is indeed good for sufferers and that this is a good form of socialisation", because I think we could look much more widely and there may be benefits in doing so somewhere down the line. In terms of evaluation "X is good, this place does X and is therefore good" isn't a plausible stance, in my view.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or asking you to change you're view point, or asking you to agree with me. On a discussion forum people will have different viewpoints, that's all.
- Admin
- #23
anthony
Founder
I don't control what book authors do. My only input with any author has only ever been IF they wanted to use something specific here, which I pretty much do not allow unless the author is also a contributor here, and they want to use their content only, not another's. Otherwise, I have no control what people do in mentioning this website, positively or negatively, free speech.
On the specific question of evidence basis for this site being helpful
There's a fairly long epistemological debate in there.
Some of us clearly do find the site helpful, and we demonstrate that by returning regularly
However that is where there's a clash between the epistemology of the natural sciences and that of the human sciences.
In the natural sciences, our perception of the objects around us, does not necessarily correspond to the actual nature of those objects, hence the need for falsification in empirical research
Our mental phenomena correspond exactly to what we experience them as.
Unfortunately there's a strong movement which I'll loosely call logical positivism, which seeks to apply the methodology of the natural sciences universally.
In summary, it claims that there are two types of knowledge.
Analytical, which is limited to the meaning and use of words and tells us nothing about the real world of objects, an example of such a tautology would be "a bachelor is an un married man"
And empirical which is forever contingent on empirical falsification.
The most cutting criticism of those views is to assess them on their own terms.
Are they just referring to the meaning and use of words and telling us nothing about the real world?
Or, are they forever contingent upon empirical testing and possible falsification?
If we actually look at the usual model of a natural sciences, physics - how would it be possible to empirically test any of Newton's three "laws" of motion?
It isn't!
And occasional physicists have been known to reject Newtonian mechanics, on the basis that it is not capable of being framed in a form which allows empirical testing. Ernst Mach, is a famous example.
Ok, back to this site
Why a need to test or quantify benefit?
I forget who said that if it's not quantitative, it isn't science, it's merely stamp collecting.
Again, the most cutting criticism is to assess the statement on its own terms
Is there a quantitative proof of it? Or is it the opinion of a stamp collector?
If individuals choose to come here, the only cost is the other activities that they could have used their time for, but didn't, because they were here.
If they find another activity more to their liking, then they'll probably not spend the time here.
It's not like money has been extorted from them and the extortionist is looking for a pseudo scientific justification for the theft, in the form of a cost benefit analysis
All costs and all benefits are subjective and cannot be compared quantitatively between different individuals.
There's a fairly long epistemological debate in there.
Some of us clearly do find the site helpful, and we demonstrate that by returning regularly
However that is where there's a clash between the epistemology of the natural sciences and that of the human sciences.
In the natural sciences, our perception of the objects around us, does not necessarily correspond to the actual nature of those objects, hence the need for falsification in empirical research
Our mental phenomena correspond exactly to what we experience them as.
Unfortunately there's a strong movement which I'll loosely call logical positivism, which seeks to apply the methodology of the natural sciences universally.
In summary, it claims that there are two types of knowledge.
Analytical, which is limited to the meaning and use of words and tells us nothing about the real world of objects, an example of such a tautology would be "a bachelor is an un married man"
And empirical which is forever contingent on empirical falsification.
The most cutting criticism of those views is to assess them on their own terms.
Are they just referring to the meaning and use of words and telling us nothing about the real world?
Or, are they forever contingent upon empirical testing and possible falsification?
If we actually look at the usual model of a natural sciences, physics - how would it be possible to empirically test any of Newton's three "laws" of motion?
It isn't!
And occasional physicists have been known to reject Newtonian mechanics, on the basis that it is not capable of being framed in a form which allows empirical testing. Ernst Mach, is a famous example.
Ok, back to this site
Why a need to test or quantify benefit?
I forget who said that if it's not quantitative, it isn't science, it's merely stamp collecting.
Again, the most cutting criticism is to assess the statement on its own terms
Is there a quantitative proof of it? Or is it the opinion of a stamp collector?
If individuals choose to come here, the only cost is the other activities that they could have used their time for, but didn't, because they were here.
If they find another activity more to their liking, then they'll probably not spend the time here.
It's not like money has been extorted from them and the extortionist is looking for a pseudo scientific justification for the theft, in the form of a cost benefit analysis
All costs and all benefits are subjective and cannot be compared quantitatively between different individuals.
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
