/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6351054

"proving" is "verifying". Psychology only falsifies. Do standard error and confidence intervals mean anything to you?

>>6314732

I think you meant "perception", not cognition. Cognition is very broad.
Why would the process of perception be altered by simply knowing how it occurs? It's not something you can control voluntarly.

>>6269430

I have a scientific background in psychology. But I don't really understand your question or how it would apply to psychology alone.

Do you mean something along the lines of "psychology is useless, so why do we put effort in research?"... If so, psychology is not useless at all. Aside from pure theoretical research, there are teaching, clinical psychology and workplace psychology which are becoming increasingly relevant.
Also there are scientific questions that can't be answered without using psychology and psychological methods.

>"what do you study?"
>"psychology"
>"oh, now I have to watch what I say"
or
>"omg, i had this dream last night, pls tell me what it means"
>"are you analyzing me right now?"

every. fucking. time.

>>5963650

This. Stop caring. It doesn't even affect you.

>>5963674
>>5964211

Being this mad. How's your substitute religion going for you? I think I might pollute the environment some more today. Just because.

>>5939323
>>5940569

I'm a psychologist. If you mean CNS however, he's in neuroscience.

Forensic Psychiatry
Psychopharmacology
Clinical Psychology, Intervention Psychology & Clinical Neuroscience
Methods of Scaling
Project: Interindividual Differences
Language and Educational Success related to Multilinguality and Migration

>>5871824

Self-reported mate preferences do not translate to actual mate choices. Chances are you will still opt for the well-built ooga-booga meathead when it comes to choosing a partner.

Source:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/15011.short

>>5848903

Watch those edges

>>5794153

As mentioned before in this thread, "projection" stems from psychoanalysis (or psychodynamic theories in general). As such, it hasn't really been subject to any empirical studies. At least none that I know about.

>>5794971

Do some research on what psychology actually is and what qualifies a discipline to be a "science" and then we can talk.

You are right, however, regarding Freud.

>>5786489
>>5786290

Psychology is not "knowing what is going on". You don't have any lectures on "mind reading" or "if someone says X he actually means Y because Z happened in his childhood."
This is just how media portrays the work of psychotherapists. Psychotherapy is actually quite boring.

>>5786282

Psychotherapists do know what they are doing. It's not that complicated, anyway. For most disorders there is a clear therapy plan to follow, like obviously with anxiety disorders.

If your asking whether or not there are distinct neurochemical patterns corresponding to each basic emotion, then no.

>>5753212

Once again, your journey towards a better understanding doesn't even require you to venture outside of wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism

Everytime one of these threads comes along I get the impression that half of the people in it don't know what psychology actually is and does and the rest is only trolling.

Well, have fun, I guess.

>>5681858

>Pray

lel.

>>5677238

It wouldn't have been a "safe bet". Clinical assessment of psychological disorders isn't something just anyone with a checklist of symptoms he fished out of the internet can do.

>>5677225

Could be something neurological. If it persists you should probably consult a medical professional.

>>5616900

0.7 means 70%... Don't look down upon psychology if you're not even able to understand what you're reading.

But I'm not so sure about that number. 70% is probably overestimated, due to weaknesses of the falconer formula used for calculating heritability. Plomin et al. (1999) report 60%.

But back to the main topic:
Race does not correlate with intelligence.
See Loehlin et al. (1973) or Scarr et al. (1977).

/thread

As the only actual psychologist on this board: MB is bullcrap.
I will not, however, once again waste my time by elaborating the numerous shortcomings of it. Just look it up yourself. But rest assured, it's garbage.

>>5436793

>athiest

Out of curiosity... why do so many people mistype "atheist" like that?

>>5396458

This is not how evolution works...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%E2%80%93Lange_theory

/thread?

>>5303372

0/10
The arousal theory has been experimentally tested. Why do you even post if you don't know anything about it?

>>5241289

To perceive something, you need two things:
1. Something that can be perceived (as in "something that interacts with your sensory system)
2. A sensory organ.

There is no evidence for the "place" you propose nor evidence for the human mind having a sensory organ that would interact with such a place.
So I'm left to assume you are just following that train of thought because it "sounds cool". Not the scientific approach.

There are several explainations for the phenomenons you mention that make less assumptions and that are backed by evidence.

Aside from that, memory is not perception.

ITT: People who do not study psychology pretend they know what it's actually like.