/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3000450
>>3000459
Not to say that what you just wrote isn't ignorant and simplistic, I'm not arguing for clinical psychology as a science here. I'm arguing for experimental psychology.

>>3000446
Show me an example of a publication in a respectable journal with an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

>>3000420
>cure
Are you absolutely unable to read?
>please look up the difference between experimental- and clinical psychology if you don’t know it.
>Change your major, bro
It's too late for that, I already graduated. Not that I did psychology anyway, I'm a neuroscience major.

>>3000334
Not that bad, considering I'm a neuroscience major myself.

>>3000254
It really isn't. I work for a bloody psychology department, have studied several of these phenomena, and you tell me it's not my field? What am I supposed to say to such a gross inaccuracy? Psychology involves biology, but as long as perception is involved it's qualified as psychology.

>>3000248
>But you see, you don't know anything about psychology.
>you consistently do not seem to get the point. Have a nice day just the same.

>>3000239
I see this discussion is pointless, because you consistently do not seem to get the point. Have a nice day just the same.

>>3000223
Also, every single example I gave falls within normal human perception. These are things you probably experience every single day, but never really noticed. Multi-sensory integration? Seriously, you cannot even function properly without it, yet the neural mechanisms are a mystery to us.

>>3000218
>Yes but the apparent truth for someone with a 100 iq and poor reasoning skills is nothing like the apparent truth of someone with a 170 iq and amazing skills of deduction.
Are you implying that people with a high IQ cannot be fooled by their perception?

Also, are you attacking the field because there is TOO MUCH science? That's something I haven't seen before, so congratz.

>>3000208
You are confusing induction with deduction...

But lets put your idea to the test.
>Could you tell me what causes motion induced blindness, the attentional blink, priming, and how multi-sensory integration is mediated?

>>3000176
And how would you make inferences about unconscious processes based on introspection? That's right, you can't.

>>3000176
And how would you make inferences based on unconscious processes based on introspection? That's right, you can't.

>>3000171
But you see, you don't know anything about psychology. The whole point of the scientific method is to overcome apparent truth because it might be false. Results of experiment can be extremely counter-intuitive, but valid nonetheless.

>>3000149
Introspection is not a valid tool. It defeats the purpose of the scientific method. If we can make valid inferences about the larger population in that way there is no need for objective quantification now is there?

Could you tell me what causes motion induced blindness, the attentional blink, priming, and how multi-sensory integration is mediated? I'd love to hear the opinion of a self-proclaimed expert and genius.

Also, behaviorism has lost its use since the cognitive revolution. No one within psychology denies that.

>>3000071
You forgot the following:
>please look up the difference between experimental- and clinical psychology if you don’t know it.

Furthermore, there is substantial evidence - this doesn't just concern psychology - from fields like genetics, cellular neuroscience and neurology that there are structural and functional abnormalities in patients with ADD or ADHD.

Read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21494861
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21497794
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094938
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17256270
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17698080

Until you've actually read a little bit about the subject you have strong opinions on, your opinion is of very limited value.

back to front page

>>2999799
>Id = basic drives = hypothalamus
>Ego = conscious thought = cerebral cortex
>Superego = "conscience" = frontal lobes.
Please, this is simplistic beyond comprehension.

>>2999709
>I am an expert in psychology even though it is not my field.
You just qualified yourself as a pseudo-scientist. Good job.

>>2999667
In that case you should probably do psychology. The only way you could work for a company is as a clinical psychologist. With a B.Sc or M.Sc there aren't many options besides doing research and teaching. You could of course work for a pharmaceutical company, but that's probably not what you meant.

>>2999644
I majored in neuroscience but I now work for a psychology department, group brain and cognition. Most of my co-workers are psychologists.

>>2999610
It all depends on what interests you the most. Biological psychology has, as the name implies, more biology in it. That means you'll have to study more chemistry and maybe some physics (for electrophysiology and MR imaging and such). It also draws more heavily on math in analysis methods.

By studying psychology on the other hand you could get into cognitive modeling more easily, which has less of a data-driven analysis component, but is more math intense. It's more fundamental in the sense that testable hypotheses follow from models rather than forming theory from experiment.

While doing your bachelors it's not all that important which way you go though. You can always find the desired career path in grad-school.

>>2999501
Frankly, because I have nothing better to do at this time.

>>2999502
>There are many people in the "academic community" who don't see things as clear cut as you present them.
If there are they sure know how to hide it.

>>2999494
>My biggest concern with psychology is it's case-study methodology.
What? If anything, neurology and psychiatry thrive on case studies. Psychological research is more easily done because it doesn't rely on hard-to-come-by clinical populations.