/sci/ - Science & Math

>thinking psychoanalysis actually analyzes everyday behavior
>thinking psychoanalysis is actually scientific
>2012
>shiggystorm

So how exactly does this qualify as an experiment? And what the flying fuck does this have to do with psychology?

Where is the a priori hypothesis? What is the independent and what is the dependent variable? etc...

You can't just try some shit without any scientific background and call it "psychology experiment"...
Do humanity a favor and kill yourself after deleting this thread.

Loehlin et al. (1973) and Scarr et al. (1977)... There were no correlations between IQ and "amount" of negroid or caucasian genes in phenotypical white people... so they are not genetically inferior in regards to intelligence...

Could you all now stop voicing your uneducated OPINIONS and start living in the real world, where DATA and EVIDENCE are used?

Wasting my time again...

>>4983560


At first it was sad, but now it's actually funny. They all go apeshit if someone does not grasp math or physics, but when it comes to psychology/neuroscience they all seem to believe they got everything about the subject figured out, without actually having any expertise at all... pathetic.

It's funny how no one thinks they need some kind of scientific expertise (psychology, neuroscience) to make claims about consciousness (or memory, since that came up too).

ITT: angsty teens, who make assumptions about the nature of consciousness because it's "trippy and cool"