/sci/ - Science & Math

>PhD in Applied Psychology
>No jobs I want
>$4/hour starting

Oh boy this is just the right thread for me.
I'll study psychology soon and am unsure about the scientific value of psychlogy cos I heard people consider it to be a pseudo science.

It's not like I mind that though, because being a pseudo-scientist sounds much cooler than scientist

>>2999467
>I heard people consider it to be a pseudo science.
Well, that's just 4chan. It's considered a science in the academic community.

>Overly defensive babble
Yeah, we know, shut up, stop crying, grow a pair, move on.

>>2999480
If you agree than that's fine. Thanks for stopping by and have a nice day.

>>2999467 here
So why exactly do we even want psychology to be acknowledged as a science?

how would one falsify freuds theories.

a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

I do agree that things like conditioning and neurobiology are sciences but Freudian theory in my opinion is just plain false the reason why it works so well is that it covers an underlying symptom of neurobiology that needs to be discovered.

>>2999457

It is simply the difficulty of the understanding of the research objects and the inability to separate truth from fiction that gives psychology its reputation. If a concept is fuzzy, and it more than occasionally is in psychology, odds are that an odd theory will come about - which will be replaced by other exotic theories (you might argue there's a decrease in oddness, but because of unclear conceptual boundaries it can freely move to uncharted silly territories).

My biggest concern with psychology is it's case-study methodology. You can pretty much cherry-pick observations to suit an idea you're putting forward. That said, it's a problem in many more fields of 'science'.

>>2999488
Because it is.
>>2999491
Freudian psychology is considered pseudoscience. No psychologist in their right mind would defend his theories. It's like homeopathy to medicine.

It's just words, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Science or no, psychology exists and has a function. When someone says it isn't a science they actually mean it doesn't have value. And that person obviously has no idea what they're talking about.

>>2999491
>how would one falsify freuds theories

Wait, does anyone who is seriously knowledgable about psychology take freud seriously anymore?

>>2999496
>Because it is
Why bother arguing about then?

>>2999470
>It's considered a science in the academic community.
There are many people in the "academic community" who don't see things as clear cut as you present them.

Not that I disagree with your opening statement, but don't make shit up just to prop up your position.

>>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.

>>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.

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

psychology is a joke.
What does thing like the stanford experiment prove?

>>2999528
Not OP but are you attacking a field based on anecdotal evidence? Very scientific faggot.

>>2999545
>anecdotal evidence
That doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>2999553
Yes, it does. You are picking a single instance (all be it an experiment) to make inferences about a larger context. That constitutes anecdotal evidence.

>>2999562

Thus

>>2999494

>>2999562
>You are picking a single instance...
Well, exactly. He didn't pick a single instance as an argument for his position; he used the Stanford prison experiment as an example for the kind of behavioral experiments he considers to be without merit.

>>2999589
And thereby implies all psychological research is conducted in this way. That's simply not the case

>>2999589
>Well, exactly
>He didn't
wat, pick one

I ask this psychology vs. biopsychology question again, since OP seems somewhat knowledgable about this. The latter seems to appeal to me more because it relies on physiological processes to study the mind/brain/whatever.

I am in community college, and never settling for any "study X, work as Y" mentality- in a constant state of "keeping my options open." I would think that majoring in biopsych and getting a science degree rather than a B.A. would expand my options for what I can do/what graduate degrees I can go. Is this necessarily the case though? Are there things I would be missing out on by studying psychobiology instead of psychology?

Psychological Review
Psychological Bulletin
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
Behavior Research Methods
Trends in Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning, Memory and Cognition
Journal of Memory and Language
Memory and Cognition
Neuropsychology
Psychological Science
Psychology of Learning and Motivation
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Annual Review of Psychology

Most /sci/ducks have never even read an article from a psychology journal.

>Also, please look up the difference between experimental- and clinical psychology if you don’t know it.

This is the main reason why psychology has a bad rep, everyone thinks of clinical psychology.

Let's get this straight: most clinical psychologists don't do science, they are not scientists, they most likely haven't gotten any scientific training. Their job is to help and advise people, perform diagnostics and present possible treatments.

Cognitive/experimental/neuropsychologists and several others are the ones doing most of the science in the field.

There are at least 1000 fields within psychology. Think of anyting... ANYTHING, and theres a psychology field relating to it.

Ex: traffic psychology, sports psychology, ecopsychology, psychophysics, etc.

>>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.

Does anyone here in this thread right now, even study psychology at a tertiary institution?
Is there anyone here who is a registered psychologist?

Just curious.
If you must know, I do. I also did a year studying alongside med students which was very interesting.

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

>>2999633
dildopsychology?

>>2999646
I'm not sure what I'll do my Masters in. I'll get my Honors first then probably take a break.

I'm considering something related to businesses, apparently good money in that.

>>2999661
Dildos aren't alive

>>2999671
Traffic isn't alive either

>>2999687
yes it is

>>2999691
>Traffic isn't alive either
>yes it is

Next responses will be
>no, they are cars
>cars are driven by people
>dildos are handled by people too

>>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.

>>2999694
GET OUT OF MY MIND

>>2999697
I'm studying psychology, it can't be helped

>>2999696
My degree is a Bachelor of Psychology.
It looks at clinical work, counselling, research
I need to do masters to become a registered psychologist though.

>>2999694
They are also handled at home, in private

>>2999703
you must be new here

The problem with psychology as a science is that everyone has a wealth of information on the subject just from personal experience. All this information can not be readily used in science, but people incorporate it into their own understanding.

Intelligent people capable of careful and accurate deductive reasoning can figure out far more this way than can scientists. Generating scientific data is far more expensive and slow.

I am an expert in psychology even though it is not my field. People call me psychic all the time because I know exactly what they are thinking and finish their sentences... I have used introspection to create a useful classification algorithm... I have a large number of persuasive arguments in ethics based on human nature etc.

I have read some psychological studies, and they are useful in cases of abnormal psychology or disease. But studies based on everything else are just responded to with DUH by people with reasonable amounts of intelligence.

Further, psychiatry is a joke, and is really inflaming to see it pushed on people who are not willing.

Rosenhan experiment - psychiatrists have very poor accuracy and rely heavily on suggested diagnoses.

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

>>2999709
phaha faggot you don't even know what psychology is

>>2999708
>Her mispel 'I' as 'You'
Laffingortists

>>2999709
You must be an Art student.

>>2999749
probably not even a student, just some nutter wankin it in his basement

>>2999496
What, you mean the Id, Ego and Superego don't correspond to physically identifiable areas of the brain?

Id = basic drives = hypothalamus
Ego = conscious thought = cerebral cortex
Superego = "conscience" = frontal lobes.

Freud just didn't know where they were ...

>>2999799
Freud is discussed in Psychology degrees, but students are urged to approach him with caution.

His theories were also primarily just his ideas, very little to back up his beliefs. He started something interesting but Psychology has advanced well beyond his original theories.

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

The fact that Psychologists seek to demonstrate their subject's validity as a science through "debate", just prove their subject's lack thereof.

You people are artists and essay-writers, just like all "social scientists". Stop pretending.

>The fact that Psychologists seek to demonstrate their subject's validity as a science through "debate", just prove their subject's lack thereof.

You must be an Art student as well.

Because if you knew better, that is a poor fallacy (two, actually).
OP's post argues for Psychology as a science on the basis of quantifiable evidence. Research on the brain and human behaviour, with statistical appropriation.

Please re read your post.

>>2999843

>Just like all sciences are just social constructs, whatever science you're majoring within is just another ideology.

>What, you think I'm wrong? THAT JUST PROVES I'M ON TO SOMETHING

>herp derp.

Not OP, but this is just a 4chan thing, I've never every stumbled upon anyone at the universities I've been to who have studied scientific method and theory, who don't believe psychology is a science.

Haha

3000000 get

>>2999855

Whoa whoa whoa, calm down, some of us artists love science and know the difference between hypothesis and theories.

>>2999809
Yeah, you're right. Phlogiston came before proper chemistry, too.

Actually, I think today's physical tools, including molecular biology, give us a better understanding of psychology than could be obtained by any of the traditional approaches.

eg
"4chan is full of basement-dwelling virgins of above-average intelligence but lacking in social skills".

Now we find that genetic imprinting nullifies the paternal contribution to cerebral cortex development - which means that you get your brains from your mother and your personality from your father - which means that females are not looking for brains in a potential reproductive partner because they won't be passed on - which means their optimal sexual strategy is to pair up with and cuckold an intelligent high-earning guy, and then cheat on him with an alpha asshole so they get alpha offspring that have early advantages..

.. wait, why aren't I posting this in /soc/?.

back to front page

Applied psychology has no reproducibility of results.

Simply put, if I break my arm, I can take it to 200 doctors and hear 200 times that it's broken.

With psychology, I'm lucky if my "ADHD" kid gets a 50% hit rate, it's a miracle. There is no cure, further validating the "snake oil" of the medications prescribed, and as soon as the diagnosis du jour comes out, it is amateurishly over-recommended, as per the cover article in TIME magazine about Ritalin kids. Whatever authority it has is almost completely undeserved, and it leeches off the efforts of honest science and mathematics to survive.

Your pseudo-science will never earn true respect, but keep trying. That which I kill makes me stronger.

/thread

>>2999884
Nothing about that post indicated hostility. Just the opinion expressed was invalid.
Artists may love science but a superficial level, given the extent to which they understand it is very limited and tends to misrepresent ceoncepts.

>>2999891
>>Now we find that genetic imprinting nullifies the paternal contribution to cerebral cortex development - which means that you get your brains from your mother and your personality from your father - which means that females are not looking for brains in a potential reproductive partner because they won't be passed on - which means their optimal sexual strategy is to pair up with and cuckold an intelligent high-earning guy, and then cheat on him with an alpha asshole so they get alpha offspring that have early advantages..

>>.. wait, why aren't I posting this in /soc/?.

Because that's just your opinion, and it's fucking wrong.
And /soc/ is full of idiots.

If you are a troll, 5/10. Because that sentence was so stupid I can't tell if it is a parody or the real thing.

>>3000077
Ah, well, 5/10 is better than my usual score.

>>3000071

My grandfather has a swollen foot, and we've been given 4 different explanations from 4 different doctors.

So biology and medicine is a pseudoscience as well now?

>>3000071
>Simply put, if I break my arm, I can take it to 200 doctors and hear 200 times that it's broken.

>With psychology, I'm lucky if my "ADHD" kid gets a 50% hit rate, it's a miracle. There is no cure, further validating the "snake oil" of the medications prescribed, and as soon as the diagnosis du jour comes out, it is amateurishly over-recommended, as per the cover article in TIME magazine about Ritalin kids. Whatever authority it has is almost completely undeserved, and it leeches off the efforts of honest science and mathematics to survive

Falacies everywhere.

No psychologist or psychiatrist will say they completely understand ADHD, or its causes.
Similarly, there are many medical conditions that are incurable or that the medical community does not entirely understand, yet treatments are available to alleviate patient suffering.

Psychology fought for a long time to be recognised within the medical community as a discipline, for starters. It didn't happen over night, or even over a decade.

And your post is all:
>this is my opinion and I won't hear it any other way

Most psychologists will not be willing to slap a label on a client, if ever.
Psychiatrists prescribe medication but only if the patient meets the diagnostic criteria, which isn't easy.
Diagnoses are made the same way as in medicine, with cases involving samples.

Every science is based on mathematics and philosophy, they are a common point of origin.

Because a problem is very complicated, and people don't nail the solution in the first try every time, it is now a pseudoscience?

Guess we better just abolish science altogether, seeing as it's an entire effort built on correcting failures quite often.

>>3000098
It's also the best kind of score because people can't be sure if troll or not, but will rage anyway.

So when you think about it, it's really a 10/10

>>3000071

This is the central problem psych faces. No-one mistakes biology for medicine, or vice versa, but psychiatry and psychology seem to be inseparable in most people's minds. The existence of 'clinical psychology', aka, psychiatric nurses, certainly doesn't help, and neither does psychology's origins in the murky swamps of psychoanalysis (another broadly unconnected topic typically confused with psych).

>>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.

>>2999716

Except for the fact that the "science" of psychology has long since moved in the direction of finding a way to incorporate ideas of people using first person experience to determine what is going on.

Behaviorism and similar methods have long since failed as meaningful ways to interpret human behavior.

Even if someone that has a pyschology degree is even remotely useful, it is because of their ability to deductively reason about human behavior and not because of studies they have read.

The ones who only try to directly apply what they read and do not understand it through first person experience are useless nutjobs who say stupid things...

I'm sure just hearing the name Freud makes people rage.

>>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.

But using people like Freud still is an integral part of psychology. It is simply idiotic to dismiss billions of people's lifetimes of collected data just because it is not controlled, in favor of expensive 6 month long studies that tell people things they already knew.

Psychology is interesting to me because it is the area that most reveals the flaws in the scientific method.

>>3000167
that is the point. There is no need for objective quantification.

Most research done in psychology is about abnormal people or situations. The ones that aren't are the butt of many many jokes.

What is necessary is a robust way to differentiate between good and bad inferences based on experiences. Once this is developed however, ALL of science will take a backseat to it.

>>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.

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

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

>>3000186
Of course you can. You cannot make direct observations of them. The whole point of inference is that you use indirect effects to infer what must be going on behind the scenes. It wouldn't be called inference if you could just look in side your own subconscious and see exactly what was happening.

>>3000176
>There is no need for objective quantification.
how the fuck can someone be so goddamn stupid

what are you even doing on the science board?

>>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?

>>3000178
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.

Science is by and for the former groups use. The latter group can deduce most things discovered by science without going to such lengths, except when it is something they have no experience of.

All the examples you challenged me to explain are outside normal human experience, thus proving my point that psychologists know better than to comment on things in the realm of common human experience.

>>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.

Psychology aints no science dont try dat psychobable on me dere aint nothin dat can be lrned by studyin human development or how people cope or how people manage stress or how what they believe effects what actions they're likely to take or any of that shit. It's just not science if there's any variation! Derp.

>>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.

Enjoy your self-reported "data".

>>3000218
actually priming is less outside that realm and is easy to explain. Any time a person is asked to fabricate something, they do not pull their response out of a vacuum, but instead generate it as a function of past experiences. And time always increases the amount of time inductive reasoning will fail so any useful system would be designed to use most recent experiences as the basis for such fabrication.

>>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.

Do you even know what an IQ is?
Because 170 is nearly 5 standard deviations away, which statistically speaking is 'what the fuck went wrong here'

>>3000223
No, I like psychology because it reveals the flaws of the scientific method. Self-help and philosophy books continue to sell like hotcakes even though they "overlap" with the stated domain of psychology because it is simply the truth that people will always be able to gain a better understanding of themselves through introspection than from psychology.

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

>>3000241
>flaws of the scientific method
what are you doing here, these are not the droids you're looking for

>>3000235
Most of the things you are bringing up are questions for biologists not psychology. How do you even relate these to psychology? It seems like you have dodged the uselessness of actual psychology by sneaking into other domains...

>>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.

You don't have a point to get. Priming is just obvious. I don't know why you tried to sneak that in there as if it was some kind of great mystery.

>>3000248
>It seems like you have dodged the uselessness of actual psychology by sneaking into other domains...
This is actually quite accurate.

inb4 either "samefag" or "You just don't get it!"

Stages of loss - here is an example of actual psychology, not biology masquerading as psychology.

This is fairly easy for anyone to introspect and describe.

That anger is an evolutionary device designed to make us take action when we have a chance of just forcing what we want is easy to deduce.

That the whole process of loss is driven by an algorithm that is necessary because previously observed correlations can fail at any time due to the limits of induction... easy to deduce

etc etc etc

>>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.

Another example - that experiment with the fake prison.

Any genius could have deduced that from common experience. Human morality decays when a human is given power. Why?

Human morality is derived from the rule of might makes right. The might of a group of angry people who sympathize with each other is in theory bigger than a single person acting selfishly. (assuming equal intelligence etc)

Compassion is secondary to this - a whole system of behavior that is derived only after it is realized that a person cannot act selfishly and get away with it.

This mimics the stages of loss where bargaining comes after anger.

Giving someone too much power creates a microcosm where the person can get away with acting selfishly and thus compassion is no longer necessary.

You rock, OP. Hopefully this will lead to less falsehoods being spread about philosophy and how it's 'not science'.

And a strong ai, please shut up.

"Compassion is secondary to this - a whole system of behavior that is derived only after it is realized that a person cannot act selfishly and get away with it. "


wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

OP, I think you're being overly defensive about psychology being called a pseudoscience because deep inside, you know it is a pseudoscience.

What you're experiencing is known as projection. It's a psychological concept; you wouldn't understand.

Of course philosophy is not science. It is inherently superior. Science is just a way for relatively stupid people to be convinced of things when they can't deduce it from simple experience and cannot easily follow arguments of people who can.

The whole point of the approach is to use the least amount of actual reasoning, and the most amount of "JUST LOOKIT AND SEE HURR"

But if you can't reason correctly you can't accurately interpret what you see, or say anything about situations where you can't see for some reason while a skilled logician can.

>>3000287

okay, this guy has got to be a troll.

someone please tell me this is a troll and not someone who actually buys the shit that is tumbling out of their mouth.

>>3000287
>Of course philosophy is not science. It is inherently superior.
>doesn't know science is an integral part of philosophy

>>3000278
I see what you did there.

>>3000291
probably some uneducated neckbeard who's so in denial of his own inadequacies that he thinks he's extremely intelligent

>>3000294

Science is a proper subset of philosophy. It is not even necessary in the case of psychology, since a person can just remove unknowns by comparing multiple varied experiences and get the mathematical equivalent to a controlled experiment.

Did you know that in some fields, for ethical or other reasons, statistical reasoning is used to work single isolated experiences into a "scientific" framework that can be used to draw conclusions from? For example, single subject studies in the field of special education.

The amusing part of this is, it shows recognition that a person can simply work all of their individual experiences into something they could make "scientific" conclusions about.

>>3000304
I don't even have a facepalm image that's adequate for your level of fail.

>>3000311
How about this?

>>3000321

pretty good

>>3000321
fucking saved

>>3000323
And who can forget the Picard version

>>3000328
oh my, this thread keeps getting better and better

how do you feel about the imminent neuroscientific revolution rendering the social sciences useless ?

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

>>3000328

I wonder how they make these mosiacs....

>>3000337
pleased to hear that, cognitive/computational neuroscience student here.

>>3000340
http://www.click7.org/image-mosaic-generator/

Many others exist on the internet.

butthurt much?

>>3000364

The pinnacle of reason.

>>3000358
wow

>>3000368
on second though, disregard everything I said I suck cock

Only a retard would deny psychology is a science. Who gives a fuck anyway. It's not like 4chan's opinion matters.

>>2999457
>psychology
>science

nope.avi

psychology is a self-creating industry. It invents "problems" or "mental issues" that people supposedly have. And the best part of the whole scam is, you guys never actually cure anyone!

The real people who cure people's mental illnesses are [spoiler alert]
* psychiatrists
* pharmacologists
* organic chemists
* biochemists

Psychology is not quantitative, too many unfalsifiable hypotheses (hurr women secretly envious of my penis), and just downright faggotry.

Change your major, bro. Or at least go to med school and become a real psychiatrist.

>>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.

"(hurr women secretly envious of my penis)"

kk

>>3000420
>too many unfalsifiable hypotheses
This is true, and probably the reason why over 90% of all psychology studies end up with results in support of the original hypothesis.

I'm not saying psychology is not a science. It's just a shoddy, unreliable science.

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

Clinical psychology is concerned with classifying every possible type of human behaviour and calling it a mental illness.


"Sibling rivalry" is apparently a mental illness, so are "arithemtic disorder", "phase of life problem", "spelling disorder" and "caffeine addiction".

The subject is a complete farce and a scam to get all these "mentally ill" people to buy CNS drugs from drug companies, and the fact that the opinions of these "scientists" are treated with as much weight as evidence as real, forensic evidence with an actual scientific basis is a fucking travesty.

>>3000450
Are you saying that caffeine addiction isn't real?

>>3000450
>the fact that the opinions of these "scientists" are treated with as much weight as evidence as real, forensic evidence with an actual scientific basis is a fucking travesty

This is what makes me fucking rage as well. Sometimes I'm watching TV, they say they're going to bring out a scientist to discuss something. Enter some psychology professor.
>mfw they actually speak of her/him as being on the same level as real scientists
>like physicists or chemists
>mfw

>>3000450

I have three words for you, Restless Leg Syndrome.

>>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.

Freud was the only good psychologist, ever.

Eat shit faggots.

>>3000469
>hurr I'm not talking about psychology I'm talking about neuroscience that psychologists have tried to take credit for.

Sure thing, man.

>>3000478
The distinction is a real one and not arbitrary. I'm a neuroscientist myself by the way (although I work for a psychology department). There's no competition between psychology and neuroscience as fields. They complement each other.

>>3000478
Neuroscience: subfield of biology (real science)
Psychology: Something for women and dyscalculics to major in (not real science)

The difference is not that hard to discern.

>>3000485
Could you try forming an actual argument rather than presenting your statement as fact?

>>3000486
Here's the difference: nueroscientists actually do things, psychologists sit around thinking "hurr what would happen if we did X to babies?".

>>3000449
I'm sure it's easier for you to access the literature. Just pick any study that confirms its hypothesis solely with self-reported data.

>>3000512
Shifting the burden of proof are we?

>>3000507
Simply wrong. My work is pretty much exactly the same as what my co-workers who happened to have studied psychology do.

>>3000517
I've given you a specific criterion to look for, which also happens to be the very reason why those hypotheses are unfalsifiable (at least within the context of their respective studies). Any survey-based study has this fundamental problem, and psychology in particular is infested with them.

>>3000522
Not who you're replying to but if they do the same work as you then what are the benefits of having a psychology background rather than a biological/medical one?

>>3000528
I'm saying that criterion is not valid. Why the fuck wouldn't you be able to test predictions which follow from hypotheses involving self-report? If you say that's the case, show me an example, because I can't find any.
>>3000532
The psychologists are usually better educated on mathematical modeling of cognitive constructs. I'm an experimentalist and test hypotheses which follow from such models. There are however also neuroscientists in my department who got into cognitive modeling and psychologists who became experimentalists. It doesn't really matter what education you finished, as long as you took the appropriate courses in grad-school.

>implying you can apply a science to the totally random variable of human nature and emotions.
>implying you can even call something so subjective a science
>implying Psychology can ever have true double-blind experiments with rigorous controls
>implying Psychology wasn't made up by a bunch of Liberal Arts degree holding med-school dropouts.

As a research director, Psychology as a science makes me want to puke.

>>3000556
And not a single argument was given that day.

>>3000556
>research directo
>use implying greentext
you must be a good scientist

>>3000589

Quite an accomplished one, in fact.

>>3000556

> research director

In what? Because it has to be a worse shit-hole than Psychology since you're making shit up and believing you'll get away with it.

>>3000556
>Implying it's random
>Implying it's subjective
>Implying double blind trials didn't originate from psychology
>Implying it is

>>3000563

>he can't read the arguments in the persons post
>he can't infer from words which arguments are being made
>typical psychology moron

Great thread,
except for the part where people ignorant about the subject try to discredit it as a science. The guy who ignored your distinction between 'clinical' and 'experimental' psychology and then claimed a poor 'cure' rate and the superiority of 'psychiatry' was particularly funny.

I'm in the summer term of my first year of my Msc experimental psych program and am really enjoying it so far, and am thinking about what I might do afterwards.

This summer I'm continuing to do my thesis work on the potential of a newly published assessment form for youth mental health, and doing an internship investigating the utility of tests of cognitive impairment on predicting driving ability in the elderly.

again great thread

>>3000607
HAHAHA I remember this faggot, you're the moron without a degree shining lights on plants

>>3000629
Thanks for the support

>>3000607
Hey when we colonize Mars will we be able to grow and eat that? And will I be able to grow weed in my oxygen garden shed?

>>3000619

>implyoing double blind trials did arise from psychology
One of the earliest suggestions that a blinded approach to experiments would be valuable came from Claude Bernard in the latter half of the 19th Century, who recommended that any scientific experiment be split between the theorist who conceives the experiment and a naive (and preferably uneducated) observer who registers the results without foreknowledge of the theory or hypothesis being tested. This suggestion contrasted starkly with the prevalent Enlightenment-era attitude that scientific observation can only be objectively valid when undertaken by a well-educated, informed scientist.[1]

>claude bernard
>PHYSIOLOGIST

Looks like the research dicks gonna own. I'm running wiki checks on his claims and so far, he's right, though I thought you were rght about double-blind coming frompsychology, but nope.jpeg we're bothwrong

You're a psychologist?

Oh that's really cool. What experiments do you do?

...

>>3000638
What does it matter where double blind experiments originated? Of course it's possible in psychological experiments.

>>3000637

Yes and yes.

>>3000631
Actually I have my M.S. in biology and next semester I'll have finished my Master Gardener instructor certfication.

So you're wrong.

>>3000643
Would you like me to describe some projects I worked on, because I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here.

>>3000647
>Master Gardener instructor certfication.

10/10

>>3000647
>claims he's an established scientist
>not even graduated yet
also
>biology
>science
>Master Gardener instructor
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>3000660

>loks up master gardener online
>see tons of corses frommultiple unis from washington to wisconsin to tennessee

say wut bro?

>>3000663
>not even graduated

Did you fail to notice M.S. Biology? I decided to go take MORE college, something you likely lack the desire to do.

>>3000676
Pics or it didn't happen. I know for a fact you didn't graduate yet faggot. Stop web MDing and because you're a fucking gardener.

>>3000607
>filthy hippy
>gardner
oh you.jpg

>>3000686

Got better than pics, got video of my research facility.

http://tinypic.com/r/2r5gleg/7

Any further questions?

>>3000676

After I finish my Msc Psych degree I've given some thought about doing a more vocational program additionally.

I've been informed by my faculty that this is how some individuals become involved in industrial organizational psychology.

As a research director I hope you're only making decisions regarding biology, because your shit talk about psychology shows academic ignorance and narrow sightedness. but don't worry because I love you still

with dual credentials I can become an analyst/therapist , or as I call it a analrapist

>>3000704
I don't give a shit about your crappy job, any faggot can water plants. Show me a picture of your degree, and stop being such a faggot or I might just believe you have an engineering degree.

>>3000666
You're a fucking gardener.

Do you really expect us to not laugh at you? really?

What are we? 12 here?

Gardener guy, can you please take your shit outside and start your own thread? You're not adding to the discussion.

>>3000705
>because your shit talk about psychology shows academic ignorance and narrow sightedness

Here's how I know it's a load of shit. From the ages of 6-16 I had to see a shrink every weekend.

Everything that person ever told me was rather wrong and only ended up making things worse for me, not including the medications he put me on.

One of the supposed best back in the '80s-mid'90s and it did exactly NOTHING for me. One I cleared his garbage out of my head and started thinking critically for myself, things improved rapidly.

I wonder f I could get my old juvenile record opened up. You'd see the miserable failures of multiple 'professional' psychologists.

>>3000706
>>3000707
Stop it guys,
this is a serious thread!

I'm sorry research director/garden scientist/biology msc candidate. I would defend what you do but I don't know what it is.

I am the one who loved you in an earlier post. I wish I could convince you of the merits of psychology, but unfortunately I don't feel I have a great enough mastery of the field to argue things that are essentially 'philosophy of science' with you. Although, it's more like just the pro psychology side arguing, with detractors calling names and demonstrating their complete lack of understanding regarding the methods used in serious psychological inquiry.

Or how you yourself said, it makes you puke.
Which as an almost biologist you should be able to explain the foundation of.

>>3000719
I see the problem here, you didn't follow the instructions:
>Also, please look up the difference between experimental- and clinical psychology if you don’t know it.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a clinical psychologist, but that doesn't mean the field in its entirety is crap. I'm specifically arguing for experimental psychology here, because that's where my expertise lies.

>>3000706

Actually, I'm working on the electrical engineering degree as well, since I do need that for additional licensing here in California.

And you apparently don't understand just how difficult crop science can be.

>>3000707

Keep laughing, without us you starve.

>>3000714

You want to talk about shit? I haven't seen your 'field' have any groundbreaking discoveries. Care to share yours? I can do multiple crops without light at all (avoiding the majority of the photosynthetic processes.) Only a handful of people on the planet are capable of such a thing.

>>3000719
So you're a nut-job. Is that why you're a gardener?

>>3000719
Tell us who this therapist was, maybe we can look him up. I won't insult you saying that maybe you mistook one type of professional for another, because I am like OP not here to defend the merits of clinical psychology.
The gap between research clinical psychology and it's efficacy studies, and the effectiveness of manualized treatments is obvious.
I do however challenge your attack on this attempt and successes of this type of research.
And on trying to lump all of psychology in as 'junk' because you had a bad experience with your therapist. I'd love to see your personal juvenile record. my own little brother has quite a record as well as good psychologists who couldn't help him.

The success rate of even clinical psychologists, despite their short falling, is way better than anything a biologist, chemist, or you yourself with whatever your prestigious accreditation is could achieve

>>3000731

'Experimental' psychology is what these people did - and the experiment was the medications they put me on, from Desipramine to Celexa to Elevil, WHILE keepng me on Ritalin or Adderall.

The majority of the field seems to exist purely to push out medications people don't need. If this isn't the case, then the professionals in the field are selling out and that still puts a major dent in credibility.

>>3000736
>Care to share yours?
Sure, we found out people with synesthesia show increased white matter connectivity between areas involved in individual synesthetic experiences, which was a world first. We showed covert visual attention can be driven by non-spatial auditory cues, and expanded on those findings by showing the individual specific white matter tracts which mediate this effect. We showed the human nucleus accumbens becomes phase synchronized with its contralateral counterpart after errors in perceptual decision making, and we could predict behavioral performance on based on the strength of synchronization.

Two of these got published in nature, and one in frontiers of human neuroscience. Do you have any publications?

>>3000760
That is not what constitutes experimental psychology. Seriously, look it up, because this discussion is pointless.

>>3000757

I don't remember the names of all of them. The only one that was ever 'effective' was Jeff Hamsley in Tennessee. All of the Texas head-docs were useless and wanted to proscribe medications.

>itt: a delusional gardener tells us his life's story

Psychology is a pseudo science. No discussion, no debating, when did a chemist ever try to argue that chemistry is a real science?

Also what makes me rage more then anything else about psychology
>>AP Psychology in High School
>Sat in my chair the whole fucking time and never took notes(most boring class I ever had)
> Across the room a Blonde dumb fuck who always took notes and told everyone she was going to major in psychology
> Test day comes around, she fails. I get a 96%(Final).
> Complains the entire time that I cheated
Everyone who fails at chemistry and/or physics always majors in Psychology
OP Do me a favour, show me the last time the valedictorian of any High school majored in psychology. Know why they didn't, its its not a real degree.

>>3000764
ah synaesthesia is cool. I've not looked into it deeply myself so this question might be somewhat amateurish.

I've been told in lectures about the phenomenon, it's relative rareness, and the numerous diverse expressions of it.

I instantly began wondering as it seems to be the overlap of sensations if the close relationship between gustatory and taste perception share a common mechanism to the areas of overlap in synaesthesia you guys say you've identified?

>>3000764

You ask me if I have any publications as if *YOU* wrote the ones you just talked about.

I don't write papers. I'm too busy actually solving problems and keeping the world fed to be able to take the time to write out half of what I'd like to write.

>>3000786
>when did a chemist ever try to argue that chemistry is a real science?
I never had to defend it outside of 4chan. Ever. I said it like 4 times in this thread already, I'm not a psychologist but a neuroscientist. I work with a lot of psychologists though.

Also, don't judge a field based on a HIGH-SCHOOL experience. Seriously kiddo, visit a lab sometime.

>>3000798
>Chemical Engineer
>Visit a lab kiddo
>Chemical
>Lab


>I never had to defend it outside of 4chan. Ever. I said it like 4 times in this thread already, I'm not a psychologist but a neuroscientist. I work with a lot of psychologists though.
>Defends psychology despite being a neuroscientist
>neuroscientist ≠ Psychology


High School Memories time
>Teacher asks me what I think of the class(skip it most of the time)
>Its a joke
>Psychology is a pseudo-science
>Blonde dumb fuck goes full retard
>Teacher agrees that there is a lot of bullshit in psychology
>Bitch never speaks another word about psychology when I'm around

>>3000791
>I instantly began wondering as it seems to be the overlap of sensations if the close relationship between gustatory and taste perception share a common mechanism to the areas of overlap in synaesthesia you guys say you've identified?
I'm not too sure about olfaction and gustation, but yes these two overlap in experience. What we showed specifically was that people with grapheme-color synaesthesia showed increased white matter connectivity within the inferior temporal cortex, which correlated with the strength of behavioral measures of synaesthetic experience. Based on that you could hypothesise the gustatory and olfactory cortices are more densely (and directly) interconnected than other sensory areas. I'm not sure, but that might have been investigated already.

>>3000792
I co-authored on those papers, yes. And if you don't publish, then I'm sorry but you're not a scientist. Publication is an essential part of science because else you would circumvent peer review and withhold your colleagues the possibility of giving criticism. You might be an applied scientist, but that's another story.

<span class="math">\underline{\rm{ Psychology-is-\bf{NOT}-a-science}}[/spoiler]

>>3000823
>>Visit a lab kiddo
A psychology lab, obviously.
>neuroscientist ≠ Psychology
Yes, I know that, thank you. There is however vast overlap. Cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience are practically indistinguishable.

Why don't you start a thread about psychology instead of a thread arguing why psychology is a science?

This thread is probably doing psych more harm than help. It's not a science as long as you only regard it enough to start a meta-thread about it.

>>2999506
instead it relies on white, middle class, college students, who are clearly an accurate representation of the population as a whole.

I think psychology is the wrong approach. To truly understand the mind, we first need to understand the brain.

>>3000825
>And if you don't publish, then I'm sorry but you're not a scientist.

That is one of the most fallacious statements I've ever read.

There are TONS of scientists that NEVER publish.

>>3000835
Because I was bored. I tried starting threads about interesting psychological or neuroscientific phenomena before, but actual science gets ignored on 4chan. A thread like this keeps me busy for a while.

>>3000846
That's the point of cogntive pscyhology/neuroscience. Investigating the mind-brain relationship. How do neural processes give rise to perception and cognition etc?
>>3000847
Publication is part of the scientific process.

Neurochemistry is a science.
Psychology is simply an interpretation of neurochemistry.

>>3000852
>pscyhology
psychology*

>>3000855
No, it isn't. It's simply a different level of study.

>>3000833
There are actual psychology labs?
HORY SHIT!!!!
What do you guys do there? Wack each other off? No seriously what kind of psychology involves a lab? Are you sure your just not being generous with the word lab?
Here let me define it for you
–noun
1.
a building, part of a building, or other place equipped to conduct scientific experiments, tests, investigations, etc., or to manufacture chemicals, medicines, or the like.

And since psychology isn't a real science, well buddy your using that word way to generously. Call it anything but a lab, more like a money drain with middle-class idiots who were never able to do any real science. So they tell the public they do 'science research' and no one has the heart to tell them they aren't scientists.

>>3000852

I don't see publication as part of this process. Reporting does not necessarily mean you have to write it on paper. You can simply gather scientists and do the experiment from scratch again with them as witnesses to obtain the same validity.

>>2999457
>You guys should know better.

Not really. This thread is full of people with the narrowest view of science I have ever seen.

This board is full of fans of science, not actual scientists.

If you study an area critically using evidence, you are studying scientifically. And that can apply to anything, even the mind.

>>3000863
Where the fuck else would we put the MRI scanner but in a lab? And the EEG equipment, and computers for behavioral experiments and data analysis. Yes, we have labs. There are pharmacological studies as well (which use pharmaca as behavioral manipulation), and for that no need medical facilities.

>>3000867
And how would you incorporate your findings in a broader theory without communicating it to your peers around the world?

>>3000867

You can also do science in a cave with a box of scraps and never tell anyone. It doesn't mean you are good scientist.

Publication allows for people who you have never meet and won't be effected by your bias to conduct the experiment and verify your results independent of you.

>>3000872
>no need
you need*

>>3000876
>And how would you incorporate your findings in a broader theory without communicating it to your peers around the world?

>Obviously didn't read "You can simply gather scientists and do the experiment from scratch again with them as witnesses to obtain the same validity."

You'd think a neuro-scientist would have better cognitive skills and be able to infer that 'gathering scientists' does not necessarily mean local ones.

>>3000886
Communicating the theory was the critical part here. You need to share results with your peers, that means unrestricted access. If you say you've found something revolutionary are you really going to be taken seriously if you just invite people over rather than communicate results directly? Who the fuck does that?

>>3000872
>MRI equipment is expensive. 1.5 tesla scanners often cost between $1 million and $1.5 million USD. 3.0 tesla scanners often cost between $2 million and $2.3 million USD. Construction of MRI suites can cost up to $500,000 USD, or more, depending on project scope.

This is why psychology isn't an actual science. You waste resources that could be better used for other actual research. Tell me in all of your study and research have you ever actually solved, accomplished or helped anyone?
No?????!!!!
WHOA BUDDY

Computers for behavioral analysis. Which accomplishes what exactly? All in all everything you do is based upon electrons and the interactions they have in the brain. Once again wasting resources.
NOT A REAL SCIENCE BUDDY
I'm sorry you have never had contact with real scientist or engineer. They would have told you long ago, pseudo science.

Here since its hard for you to understand.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status
>cannot be reliably tested
>reliably tested
I have yet to hear any psychology experiments that result exact same outcome as the previous ones. Ergo Pseudo Science.

>>3000892

I fly all over the world to attend what we call 'conferences' where we share results and data, and occasionally (time permitting) perform the actual experiment. Why, yes, real scientists do travel to acquire data and check out experiments. REAL scientists do this.

>>3000898
>I have yet to hear any psychology experiments that result exact same outcome as the previous ones.
That's because you are, excuse my language, an ignorant fuck. I'm done talking to you.
>Tell me in all of your study and research have you ever actually solved, accomplished or helped anyone?
FYI: yes. [>>3000764]

>psychology is a science
>202 posts and 17 image replies omitted.

10/10

>>3000911

I bet those scientists who are invited also publish.

>>3000911
Right, but in order to present at a large conference you have to have an established record of publications. You can't just walk in and say "hey, here's some stuff I found" without it being validated. Yes, new results are presented at conferences, but they are almost always followed by publication.

>>3000898
>Tell me in all of your study and research have you ever actually solved, accomplished or helped anyone?

Yea, just like that dumb Large Hadron Collider, what good will that ever do?

>>3000918

A far number of them are actually under corporate NDA and can't do anything.

>>3000517
>>3000517
>>3000517
>>3000517
>>3000517
>>3000914
>>3000914
>>3000914
>>3000914
>>3000914
>>3000914

Come now bitch burden of proof is on you. I can easily explain that any high schooler can find the value of gravity to 4 sig figs with very little ease. Ergo repeatable results.

Your very instance of using ad hominem proves that psychology is a pseudo science.

>All in all everything you do is based upon electrons and the interactions they have in the brain

Karl Pilkington get the fuck off 4chan. pic related it's you.

>>3000927
Hmmm, that could be true. How do they get acknowledged in the scientific community then?

>>3000937

Word of mouth, like any other form of social circle, professional or otherwise.

>>3000929
/sci/ confirmed for 12 y/o

>>3000929
20 minutes later
No Reply. WOOT VICTORFUCKRY

>>3000987
>poor troll
>no reply
>claim victory
such are our ways, here on /sci/

Sure it's a pseudoscience. that's a type of science.

>>3001023
Are you even trying to troll? At least put some effort into it you lazy faggot.

Only a retard would deny psychology is a science. Who gives a fuck anyway. It's not like 4chan's opinion matters. 

>>3001003
>Get called out for not providing evidence
>Claim it's a troll

>>3001081
>implying I got called out on anything
>implying you're not 0/10

I've read through about half of this thread (the rest seems to be a cesspool of trolls), since I'm beginning my Bachelors in psychology this September. Yes, I'm underage b&, but do not frequent that board. You know the one.

Simply put, this thread fills me with dread at the thought that I may have made a mistake.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>3001114
That was not my intention at all. Trust me, the environment at university is nothing like what you see in this thread (if that wasn't obvious).

wow, it's my first time on this board and from what I can see it's full of faggots that like to pretend they know anything about everything

as far as the eye can see

this board is the most aids spreadin shit ever

>>3001093
>Get called out for not providing evidence
>Still provide no evidence
>Claim you never got called out

>>3001114
>I'm underage b&

Reported

test
<div class="math">\oint_{\partial A}\vec H\;\cdot\mathrm{d}\vec s=\iint_A\vec J\;\cdot\mathrm{d}\vec A+\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t}\int\!\int_A\vec D\;\cdot\mathrm{d}\vec A</div>
end test

test
<div class="math">\oint_{\partial A}\vec H\;\cdot\mathrm{d}\vec s=\int\!\int_A\vec J\;\cdot\mathrm{d}\vec A+\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t}\int\!\int_A\vec D\;\cdot\mathrm{d}\vec A</div>
end test

>>3001114

Stay classy mods

>>3001114
dayum

OP, what is it that pscyhology could predict that biology couldn't?

I mean, if psychology has a hard science claim beyond the chemical and physical causes of a phenomenon, how would you make a prediction which is not based on them?

>>3001114

>>3001114

Proof that children should be seen and not heard.

Psychology is irrelevant.

Robots have self-developed altruism.

Psychology will likely never explain that.

>>3001244
Biology and chemistry are an integral part of psychology, but the object of study differs. Psychologists are interested in behavior, cognition and perception. Biology only forms the basis, but the experimental methods are qualitatively different.

[underline]test[/underline]
test
[bold]test[/bold]
test

>>3001266
I'm sorry, does this look like vBulletin to you?

>>3001165

you faggot, /sci is not 18+

>Psychologists are interested in behavior, cognition and perception. Biology only forms the basis

except no and we've demonstrated that in self-evolving code and machines.

[maths]\underline{\rm Psychology-is-a-science} test[/maths]

<span class="math">\underline{\rm Psychology-is-a-science} test[/spoiler]

>>3001275
Read the rules http://www.4chan.org/rules

>>3001264
Yea, thanks for the textbook answer. I am aware that psychology is the science which studies the mind and behaviour, using elements from other natural sciences. But I asked something else, OP:

Where does the 'psycho'-logical nature of a phenomenon start and where does the bio-logical end? What is 'psychological' about temperament if it mostly genetics? If it's mostly biologically fixed, then it's biological, not psychological.

Also if culture shapes biology, then lots of bio-cultural outcomes are studied by psychology in terms of norm and norm-breaking, although they're mostly interactions between biology and culture.

Also, make a list of 10 predictions made by psychology that will always hold.

>>3001305
Where does chemistry end and biology begin?

You don't seem to understand how science works with regards to predictions

>>3001276
Your point being?

Still waiting on answers to my robot argument.

Psychology can't explain that since that's purely silicon and electrons, eh?

If this pst numer ends in 1337 psychology is bullshit, period. Punta. Exclamation.

>implying psychologists understand the underlying physics that control and govern everything

\underline{\rm t-e-s-t}

>>3001320
Stop dodging the fucking questions. It's quite clear for a physicist where does physics end and chemistry start. For the overlapping phenomena there is chemical physics. But culture does not supervene on chemistry and physics as far as we know. So, psychological phenomena, at best!, can claim to induce chemical and physical changes in an organism within the already established limits of those organisms. So, the degree to which an organism responds to 'psychological' phenomena is strictly limited to by the chemical and physical properties of that system.

If you don't understand the question, keep silent. Now, where does a phenomenon start being psychological and where does it end being simply the product of fixed underlying biochemical properties? What the fuck is psychological about biochemical changes in an organism responding to external stimuli? Is that 'psychology'?

>>3001305
There is no clear-cut point where psychology ends and biology begins. It is the object of study which defines the field.
>If it's mostly biologically fixed, then it's biological, not psychological.
That's a false dichotomy. 'Psychological' does not imply there's no genetic influence, it merely indicates that it is externally measurable through behavior, and that it involves the mind (as a function of the brain). Genetic determanants are something for biologists, but the behavioral manifestation is something for psychologists.
>Also, make a list of 10 predictions made by psychology that will always hold.
I don't like your forceful tone.

>>3001355
>Stop dodging the fucking questions.
That post was not made by me.

Does anyone have a link to that huge compendium of resources /sci/ put together? I can't find it.

>>3001357
No problem, man, but the credibility of your science is at stake..
I asked you to prove that psychology, as a science, is able to make equally solid predictions as any other science. Such as, someone with X personality trait will always do this under these conditions. That's what a science about mind and behaviour is supposed to do, right?

>>3001394
>No problem, man, but the credibility of your science is at stake..
Actually, my respective field is neuroscience.
>I asked you to prove that psychology, as a science, is able to make equally solid predictions as any other science
Predictions are probabilistic, not deterministic, even in physics. That's the whole point of having statistical methods to make decisions about rejecting the null hypothesis.

Still waiting any sort of answer explaining why robots self-developed altruism. How does psychology explain this?

254 posts and 24 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

NOPE.AVI

That being said, OP...kudos to you. I've not examined this thread or your arguments but I do believe psychology is a science. I have an undergrad degree in psych and am planning on going for a post grad soon. In college I did a year long project with a professor and a doctoral student working on synesthesia. It was the most challenging, enlightening, and entertaining experience I had in school. My personal interests tend to lie toward social psychology, but there is a real methodology to it.

Another thing I like about psychology is that not only does it involve hard science, experimentation, and analysis, but there are ethical discussions, philosophical consequences, and often immediate and real impacts on the way we live and operate. Unfortunately, these discoveries aren't always politically viable or socially popular. I often wonder if the /sci/entists here, and elsewhere, hate on psychology because they are misanthropic, or maybe they hate themselves.

test

>>3001411
Nope. Predictions are probabilistic in physics at quantum level. In the classical physics world, predictions are quite exact.

You still haven't provided any predictions that psychology can make. If it doesn't make testable predictions, it's not a science.

A brain is a classical physics system, according to mainstream academia, right? Where are your predictions of psychological phenomena based on someone's brain chemistry, ROI activations, etc?

Explain to me:
-economy/anthropology/sociology: there are just human ecology
-psychology: basically applied neurosciences (see OP is a neuroscientist)
Why does no one give credit to biology?
Behaviours are just phenotypes. Anything you can quantify and compare and study (ie, anything that is science) in the brain is biological. So why call it "psychology"?
Psychologists are just the guys who help angsty kids and menopausal women overcome their personal issues.