here's the thing-we're being honest with you. and i guess the only thing you keep saying is, "well this study actually is fine because (it's saying what i want to hear) they interviewed an intern and they're PhDs and you're not-" (you keep saying "i'm not"-but when you use this argument toward other people-repetitively-the meaning changes-or this is what i hear.)You don't seem to buy it. I tend to think that people with Ph.D.s who are published in peer review journals probably have a deeper theoretical background than I do in making their claims.
especeally when paired with "oh well you don't buy it." like, no, she doesn't buy it. this is all an appeal to authority. it doesn't matter who's doing the study or who's saying the thing. an infallible study by a walmart greeter is going to be superior to a fallible study by a PhD. what matters is the data. and the data here is nonsense. it's saying that people are cluster b
(or more specifically, narcissitic personality disorder-that's the only disorder actually represented by the "dark triad")-
when they have zero contact with cluster b patients! they're going to say xyz makes you a narcissit without speaking to a single narcissist? it is nonsense. you may not have a good understand of psychology and trust the data. that isn't true of everybody here. i've heard many psychologists point blank say that people like me are hopeless and bad.
so no, i don't trust people just because they're psychologists or just because they have a degree.
i trust people who present and gather their data in objective manner.