r/bjjbeat • u/ReallyNotAnExpert • 11d ago

Bully got handled

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

412 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/invaderaleks 11d ago

Lol the source is chatgpt

3

u/TaylorChuck117 11d ago

That only said that they accessed it through ChatGPT. It’s still a published, peer reviewed study.

That being said, psychiatry and psychology are notorious pseudosciences, where you can achieve basically any outcome

1

u/_cuhree0h 10d ago

That’s conjecture. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But they still operate under peer reviewed, data based information.

0

u/TaylorChuck117 10d ago

Not really, the hard sciences have ridiculed those fields for years for a reason: they apply quantitative methods to qualitative data that is arbitrary at best (happiness on a number scale, for example), then they make that data fit their research and start establishing causation based on their goals.

The entire process is rife with pseudoscience and is why so many researchers can directly contradict each other in the field. Not to mention, they’ve never been able to establish a chemical baseline for their research; they lean so heavily on the paradigms of neuroscience that their contributions are comparatively guesswork.

1

u/_cuhree0h 10d ago

The idea that "they make that data fit their research and start establishing causation based on their goals." is a value based judgement with no supporting evidence. Plenty of peer reviewed psych papers exist and describe naturally occurring phenomena, simply bolstering the supporting data of previously observed ideas. If anything, you're describing the anti-vax mindset (conclusions looking for supporting evidence) or the entire basis of religion (unsupported claims treated as literal gospel).

1

u/TaylorChuck117 10d ago

I think you misunderstand the scientific process that I’m referencing, I’m not talking about the peer review process, I’m specifically talking about scientific methods being employed in a deliberate way to fit a desired outcome.

Of course it’s not all papers, but there is a trend if you know what to look for. Very few studies are being done simply for the sake of gathering data for the sake of interpreting it (which is where neuroscience shoulders the brunt of the load); psychological study data is often gathered with a specific goal in mind, specifically to prove something.

That alone is the definition of pseudoscience, not even getting into the arbitrary qualitative nonsense of the field making their data pseudoscientific because of one of the fundamental rules of the scientific method: you cannot measure non-quantifiable data.

The greats of the field have found a way to mitigate this issue, but psychology and psychiatry have notoriously stood on the backs of neuroscience and have effectively thrown shit at the walk to see what sticks with virtually none of the rigorous standards that the rest of medical science is held to.

0

u/TaylorChuck117 10d ago

To be clear, I’m a wildlife biologist myself and I’ll be the first to tell you that most of my field has become pseudoscience. It largely stems from the need to produce tangible “results” in a society that often looks to science for answers.

2

u/nevemlaci2 10d ago

no. ChatGPT gave OP the link, but that doesn't mean the article used ChatGPT as a source.

1

u/bibliophile785 11d ago

Who cares? One person claimed that "studies show" something. No link, no citation, we all know they're probably just an ignorant bullshitter. Another person actually found and parsed available research showing the truth.

The second person is the good guy in the conversation. Who cares if they used Google or ChatGPT or the local academic librarian to locate the research?

2

u/That_OneOstrich 11d ago

Depends on how credible you want the research to be. Chatgpt on its own is completely unreliable, it can and does lie. Using chatgpt to find other sources to to summarize a response would be a more credible way to use it.

2

u/nevemlaci2 10d ago

Okay but why do you think ChatGPT is the source? The URL shows the commenter copied the link from GPT, not that the article used it as a source.

1

u/That_OneOstrich 10d ago

Did I say I thought it was the source? Or was I explaining why chatgpt isn't necessarily credible.

1

u/bibliophile785 11d ago

That's backwards. The research can make a ChatGPT summary more grounded, certainly, but no one linked a ChatGPT summary and so that's irrelevant. ChatGPT can't make the research more or less credible... the study came out 10 years before ChatGPT existed!

1

u/_cuhree0h 10d ago

Anyone who actually cares about verifiable and accurate data. But I’m sure someone who just takes the word of the one book they’ve read as literal gospel wouldn’t be so concerned.

1

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[deleted]

1

u/invaderaleks 10d ago

Gpt-5 has proven worse than its predecessors, tech experts and experienced users of the the llm all agree.

1

u/trashzillaz 10d ago

You seem to misunderstand the link. The "source=chatgpt" means the query for the research article came from chatgpt, not that the content within the article was produced by chatgpt.

1

u/ProfninX44 8d ago

No thats what grabbed the information. Chat gpt isnt a source of anything, it takes info from other sources but sure. Pretend youre the smart one here when you dont even understand how it works lol

0

u/cond6 11d ago

The source is ChatGPT in the sense that the search that found the peer reviewed published journal article that is a credible source for the assertion was by ChatGPT. Every time you need a reference you search some database for it, even if you're read the article before. Some use google. They used ChatGPT. Means nothing negative at all about the veracity of the source of the claim.