Best medical psychology reference books according to redditors
We found 25 Reddit comments discussing the best medical psychology reference books. We ranked the 11 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 25 Reddit comments discussing the best medical psychology reference books. We ranked the 11 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
3/3
Another argument for IQ being genetic is that IQ of mixed race black/white people is intermediate that of the black and white average.
Obviously there are environmental factors that impact IQ. But they don't have as much an impact as people think.
Overall it seems that intelligence is about 80% nature 20% environment.
Lets compare the IQ of black populations to poorer populations of other races. Using GDP per capita data from World bank as well as Census data and IQ data from this study you find that blacks in America have a GDP per capita of 20,458 and an average IQ of 85. There are many other countries with few blacks that have lower GDPs per capita and higher IQ. Estonia, Chezk Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Russia, Romania, Belarus, Vietnam, Ukraine, Mongolia, Serbia, China, and others all have lower GDPs and higher average IQs.
Now lets look at SAT scores. One study found that if average SAT scores of high school students are broken down by their parent’s socioeconomic status or SES (for both Blacks and Whites), Whites from families who earn less than $20,000 a year do just as well on the SAT as Blacks from families that earn more than $200,000 a year. Other studies have found that Whites from severely impoverished families who earn under $10,000 a year tend to have higher SAT scores than Blacks who earn over $100,000 a year. Another source. And another.
Another thing that's interesting, is that the richer people you compare, the larger that Black-White IQ gap becomes. In this book 32 studies were analyzed and found a mean Black-White IQ gap of 12 points between people of low SES and 20.3 points between people of high SES. This has been replicated multiple other times, including in Murray's The Bell Curve.
Now lets look at racial and IQ difference over time. The U.S. Census began collecting information on individuals income in 1939. Since then, Black wage relative to White wage have risen from 44% to 67% in 1989. Using data from the US Census Bureau between the 1950’s and 2014, there was a dramatic reduction in the size of the Black White income gap. The median income of Whites went from 2.4 time larger than the median Black income during the 1950’s, to only around 1.3 times larger in 2014. Rates of post-secondary educational attainment revealed the exact same pattern. In 1940, Whites were nearly 4 time more likely than Blacks to have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. However, as of 2014, Whites were only 1.5 times more likely than Blacks to have a BA or higher. All and all, the historical trends reveal huge reductions in the education and income gaps between Blacks and Whites.
But during this time, the white/black IQ gap hasn't really changed. In this book it's reported that IQ testing during the first world war gave Blacks a mean IQ of 83. Today the average IQ of blacks is 85. Thus, the Black-White IQ gap has been reduced by 2 points during a time period in which the black/white socio-economic gap has been reduced by at least 50%.
I really don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting that intelligence is largely determined by genetics. Environment certainly plays a role, but it's not as large as you've been led to believe.
> Your argument boils down to "Peterson said this idea is based in Pragmatism, but his argument isn't included in any textbooks on pragmatism." Well, sure. He's not reiterating American Pragmatism, he is putting forth something a little different. I think it's a bit of a strawman/sleight of hand to say "ah this doesn't fit perfectly into the Pragmatist box so it's not valid". Like it doesn't necessarily matter what Rorty's opinion on Peterson would be. There's no truth value inherent to Rorty's opinion inherently.
I didn't make an argument, so I can tell you're already misreading my comment. And even if I did, reframing it the way you did is incredibly uncharitable. Reframing like that is a good way to pick a fight, though. I'd have thought a JBP fan would be sensitive to that. Christ.
I was saying: I consider myself a pragmatist and find JBP's use of pragmatic ideas confusing, so understanding pragmatism probably isn't sufficient for understanding JBP. 'Check out American Pragmatism' isn't going to cut it.
(Well, ok, I guess that is technically an argument, but I don't think it's what you meant.)
And then I went on to describe aspects of JBP's thought/approach that I find hard to square with pragmatism. I'm not making a definitive case that he's not a pragmatist, whatever that might mean. I'm more talking out loud about my own confusion.
Lastly, your response is incredibly arrogant. What do you know of my understanding of pragmatism? "Textbooks?" Read my some of my top comments and posts and you'll see that I've (successfully) staked my livelihood on pragmatism. So, I'm not unlike JBP in that regard, I suppose.
> I mean, a 100% Pragmatist would assert that the Pragmatist definition of truth is superior, literally by definition of what it means to be a Pragmatist fully, right?
Absolutely not. Asserting something is superior would require understanding the myriad of ways that thing interfaces with with the world. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to claim that.
> If a Pragmatist doesn't advocate for a Pragmatist definition of truth over other types, then what does it even mean to consider them a Pragmatist?
A relevant parable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
It's not about advocating for one type of truth other other truths, it's about the way we approach the concept of truth. At the end of it all, you have to keep in mind that you might be utterly confused about what's really going on, like the blind man who thinks the elephant's trunk is a snake. Nominally, the blind man is wrong, but nevertheless the fact that he said it is a snake tells us something about both the blind man and the elephant, assuming we're willing to investigate deeper.
That process of inquiry, will, in the limit, converge to the truth. (This is how both Peirce and Dewey talk about truth. James is the one who said "That which is useful is true", which I think is more digestible but less accurate.)
In mathematics, for example, I'm not going to be using the pragmatic theory of truth because I've constrained the domain of discourse in a way that makes it unnecessary. I think there is a way to subsume this flavor of truth in a pragmatic concept of truth, but I don't know how useful or correct it is.
JBP is really bad at this stuff, BTW. He chides Sam Harris for having a "13 year old atheist's understanding of religion", but has a first-year undergrad's understanding of mathematics:
The fact that he's been confused about Gödel for 20+ years while still being confident enough to write/tweet stuff like that really gives me pause.
> Again, this is the logical fallacy/sleight of hand argument you made earlier about "No True Pragmatist", but Pragmatism is about asserting a method of obtaining truth that has more merit than other methods. That's no less sure than Peterson's Maps of Meaning perspective.
This is almost exactly wrong. I mean, you can read Peirce and he talks about this explicitly. Pragmatism has a meta-theory of inquiry. Peirce and Dewey talk at length about inquiry and the properties a process of inquiry must have if it is to be self-corrective and truth-converging.
See, e.g., Dewey's Logic - The Theory of Inquiry.
I would challenge JBP to identify what self-corrective aspects his "Maps of Meaning" system has. 50 years from now, how will his system have evolved? What directions might it evolve in? What questions can't it answer? By what process to we reconcile his way of understanding with other facts?
These are things I've never heard him talk about, but I admit I'm turned off because he seems less concerned with refining his system and more concerned with demonstrating that his system accounts for everything thrown its way.
To me, this is one of the most damning critiques of religion. Let's say we're investigating God. What has religion taught us about God in the last 100 years that it was not able to teach us 1000 years ago?
There might be "truth" in religion, in the sense that it maps onto something about our psyche, but by what process is it converging towards anything?
Even JBP realizes this is a problem from a pragmatic perspective, which I think is why he always argues that the Christ story is the maximally tragic tale and therefore no refinement is necessary insofar as it's meant to capture some kind of tragic archetype.
>Which of course is from 1996 (23 years old),
Indeed, but it's still the gold standard and new discussions on the topic reference it as the conclusions still hold true today.
>and talks about direct evidence, not evidence in general. Such desired direct evidence was published first in 2013, and has since been updated a number of times as new GWASs come out. The results don't really change much, though there are issues with this approach. Most recent publication is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5. A slightly less direct approach is to use admixture analysis. 20th century studies of this are mostly supportive of genetic causation (Shuey reviewed these in 1966), and the only published modern study is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1. There are a few more of these in review, and more powerful methods (local admixture, GWASs on sibling pairs) exist and studies using these are under way.
>
>So plenty of progress since 1996 and its basically all pointing in the same way.
Those "studies" you link to are essays published in the pseudojournal Psych which is known for just pushing racist nonsense and having practically no quality control.
Specifically, the author you link has posted numbers articles in the "journal" demonstrating the truth of psychic powers.
So I agree that there is new and exciting evidence on the topic of race and IQ, as long as we qualify it by saying that the evidence is of the same quality as the evidence for telekinesis.
There are many.
Edited to add one more: Plutarch's Life of Cato the Younger
Its Breo
https://www.amazon.com/Worth-Dying-Robert-Dennis-Eliot/dp/B000E7RABG
You might also try reading Nagel's What Does it All Mean? with her:
>This book is a brief introduction to philosophy for people who don’t know the first thing about the subject. People ordinarily study philosophy only when they go to college… I would be very glad if the book were also of interest to intelligent high school students with a taste for abstract ideas and theoretical arguments… This is a direct introduction to nine philosophical problems, each of which can be understood in itself, without reference to the history of thought… The center of philosophy lies in certain questions which the reflective human mind finds naturally puzzling and the best way to begin the study of philosophy is to think about them directly
And I can't help but plug this math book for kids (more number theory than probability, but very, very good).
Archived for your convenience
Snapshots:
^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
You can always check Amazon.
Total is around $80, including shipping. Maybe not the price you were hoping for, but it is cheaper than the Co-op.
Readings for SOC and Intro to SOC
Which of course is from 1996 (23 years old), and talks about direct evidence, not evidence in general. Such desired direct evidence was published first in 2013, and has since been updated a number of times as new GWASs come out. The results don't really change much, though there are issues with this approach. Most recent publication is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5. A slightly less direct approach is to use admixture analysis. 20th century studies of this are mostly supportive of genetic causation (Shuey reviewed these in 1966), and the only published modern study is https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1. There are a few more of these in review, and more powerful methods (local admixture, GWASs on sibling pairs) exist and studies using these are under way.
So plenty of progress since 1996 and its basically all pointing in the same way.
Are you in the Toronto area?
I didn't count how many books there are... 2 or 3 dozen maybe? If you want them, it's kind of an all or nothing deal. Most of them are bundled together with twine in small stacks. I'm not going to undo them.
Here are a few examples based on whatever book was on the top of some of the stacks. You'll notice none of these are particularly recent.
The textbook is selected readings from
Joseph F. Rychlak - Introduction to Personality and Psychotherapy: A Theory-Construction Approach
https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Rychlak-Introduction-Psychotherapy-Theory-Construction/dp/B008WDK9PI
Narcissism is a primary trait of Psychopathy.
Also the "Dark Triad" is one of the worst personality indexes out there as it was based on data collected from undergraduate students and analogued for the general population. You can not generalized the personality traits from a closed population of university students to the total population at large...
The current criteria for psychopathy (not in DSM) is "superficial charm, a grandiose sense of self-worth, a tendency towards boredom and a need for stimulation, and an ability to be conning and manipulative , and a lock of remorse". People also gain pleasure from being cold and callous, and by competing with and humiliating others.
Source: http://www.amazon.ca/Abnormal-Psychology-Edition-Susan-Nolen-Hoeksema/dp/0070959978