/sci/ - Science & Math

Something doesn't add up here.

>>4047063
lol what?

>>4047063

Possible troll bro.

im not a troll

I dont come to /sci/ very often and I dont ever see pysch threads. So I was wondering if you guys though it was a lame science or not?

Also was hoping you guys had some psych jokes i could use on my gf.

>impying you shouldnt major in pysch for the vast amount of pussy

>>4047053
>>4047053
psychology = a science
engineering = not a science

\thread

>>4047090
but engineers study science and math so they can apply it to their designs

Its applied science

>>4047090
science or not i have taken my fair sahre of physics, mathematics, and chemisty which are all science.

Either way does /sci/ ever discuss psychology?

The psychology they teach in college is pseudoscience.
Evolutionary psychology can be non-psuedosciencey when it's done right. Oddly enough this seems to be the direction mainstream psychology is going in.

Psychology stories which appear on science news websites tend to fascinating and non-pseudosciencey.

any good psych jokes?

>engineering = not a science
implying that creators don't discover new things while applying the concepts of science.

>>4047110
An engineer and a psychologist walk into a gay bar.
The engineer is there to pick up men, and swallow sperm. The psychologist is there to observe the deviant engineering lifestyle, and hopefully obtain a hypothesis of why most engineers are homosexuals.

>>4047109
>untested fiddle faddle
>hard science

>>4047109

Britfag studying psych with neuropsych here - I've wondered before if maybe the US' commercial approach to psychology is what generates the animosity on here. There's nowhere near as much of a therapy industry over here so the bullshit side of it isn't pushed so strongly. In fact, before even starting psychology proper there's an entire course on demarcation and pseudoscience. It's definitely heading in the right direction, at least.

>>4047135
it's not always the profit motive. sometimes, it's the quality of the goods that earns everyones ire.

imho it's the lowered standards of education and psychological treatment. basically, in america, healthcare costs have doubled since the 70s and if you're not rich as fuck, the only psychological treatment available to you is a regimen of psyche altering pills. all the good psychologists are expensive as fuck and mostly everyone else tends to be very unhelpful to say the least.

...actually, barring high real estate costs, i don't quite understand why this is. it's not like psychologists have to pay high malpractice premiums like medical doctors. is it the high cost of education? ...can't be... medical school is even more expensive. the running costs of being a psychologist are much lower than that of being a doctor...

hmm.

psychologists compete with priests and therefore are stigmatized among the religious and socially/politically connected.

it's a separate money stream, one that doesn't necessarily feed back.

>>4047135
I think it's pretty universal (although the us does seem to have a huge quack-peddling self-help industry).
The real problem with psychology is that it's natural for everyone to think they're an expert in it, so they kinda go into it closed-minded with their opinions mostly already formed. Add to this the fact that people use psychology to justify political beliefs (most political differences imo eventually boil down to differing beliefs on human psychology) so you've got a perfect environment for pseudoscience.

Of course the focus nowadays seems to be much more on experimental evidence and scientific explainations, but if you think back to the 70s and before it seems psychologists would just make statements completely unsupported by anything (other than wishful thinking), and if enough psychologists agreed it would become mainstream teaching (and as an outsider to acedemic psychology i'm not sure if this pseudoscience has been completely purged from the curriculum of many colleges). When you think about it, it IS the science with the most potential for controversy. So if what students are being taught is heavily politicised rather than being objective then it is surprising.

eh, most psychology in nowadays is pretty much cognitive science. It's just that people still have a negative perception of it.

>>4047222
>then it is surprising
*is not surprising

still looking for some psych jokes

psychology is the major of 20% of undergrads in US universities so I kind of laugh at these people when they look for jobs.
but l majored in economics so l didn't do much better.

>decide to take a psych class or two for the spring
>EVERY CLASS IS FULL
Well, at least it's not like this for other fields... I should've figured that this would happen due to 2/3rds of the school population being female.

>>4047417
economics is even more of a pseudoscience than psychology. Economics is now where psychology was in the 70s.

>>4047109
>Evolutionary psychology can be non-psuedosciencey when it's done right.

EvoPsych is among the worst fields if you're looking for real science. Just-so-stories can sound like satisfying reasons but they're utterly unscientific. You can invent an evolutionary reason for any behavior but you can rarely confirm it without doing either real neuro or real bio.

The real psych, the stuff you get late in grad school or late under grad, is experimental work in cognitive neuroscience.
That's the direction the field is taking, distinction between psych and neuro is blurring really quickly. Modern experimental psych is like neuro from the top down rather than the bottom up.

>>4047222
Surprise! The early days of a branch of science were/are filled with a lot of bologna that isn't backed up with evidence!

The field of psychology is still a relatively new branch. 100 years old? Have you any idea the history of medicine? For fuck's sake, so-called hospitals didn't even have anyone that washed their hands regularly until the 1800s. And there have been medical practitioners since BC times. Even the hallowed halls of physics were largely conjecture until hundreds of years later.

TL;DR
There are some legitimate criticisms of the field of pyschology, but that doesn't make it not science.

Psychology is not a pseudo-science.

>pyschology
>a hard pseudo-science

ITT: people who don't actually study Psychology.

Psychology isn't a "Psuedoscience" Biological psychology= science. Evolutionary psychology= science.
Cognitive, social, behavioural... All sciences.
Psychodynamic. Not a fucking science.
Yes, I'm mad.
Freud, Jung, Not science. Not psychology.

Suck my dick.

the briggest problem in psych is that it's currently a "what" field not a "why" field
we have a very good idea of how people act and no idea why

>>4047432
>You can invent an evolutionary reason for any behavior but you can rarely confirm it without doing either real neuro or real bio.

i wasn't aware that adding in "real bio" made it no longer evolutionary psychology (also i prefer it when the reasoning goes the other direction i.e from evolutionary theory to prediction about human behaviour). I basically mean psychology that admits we are essentially intelligent animals and a lot of our behaviour should follow evolutionary reasoning, espeically that which is common to all animals. Stuff about dominance/status hierarchies i would include in this.

Most of the psychology stories i read nowadays which are not neuro-based would use evolutionary biological reasoning somewhere in them. Then again, maybe that's just science news websites pandering to their audience...

>>4047465
>Biological psychology= science
>biology
>science

>>4047467

Wrong.

Ever heard of Evolutionary or biological psychology?

Explains exactly why people behave in certain ways. Almost always comes down to: need to survive/ replicate.

Only issue with this is, why do we feel the need to survive?
However, only philosophy can answer this.

>>4047467
Actually we do know why we act in certain ways, to some extend.

>>4047474

I wish I was as funny as you.

>>4047477
>evolutionary psychology
>hindsight explanations

>>4047494

As opposed to predictions of future behaviour?

I.e. Evolutionary psychology?

Good talk, see you out there.

"Anon, what do you study?"
"Psychology"
"Oh you're not going to REEAD MY MIIIND, ARE YOU? TELL ME WHAT I'M THINKING! WHAT DID I HAVE FOR BREAKFAST THIS MORNING? IM A FUCKING IDIOT".

God dammit, every time.

>>4047477
>Only issue with this is, why do we feel the need to survive?
>However, only philosophy can answer this.

That's easy. We evolved reward and punishment systems.

Think of it like this:
One day an organism arises which for some reason has a group of neurons it strives to activate 100% of the time (these could be neurons associated with something benificial- say eating).
Pretty soon evolution takes over and what actions/stimuli are require to activate these neurons and how much activation they lead to becomes mercilessly set by natural selection. And there you have the birth of the reward system.
Imagine the same for a punishment system (neurons which the brain strives to activate as little as possible), and realise that wiring things through the reward/punishment system is a great way of evolving behaviour in animals. Finally imagine an intelligent species whose brains are wired to rationalise these neuronal activations as "feelings".

>>4047502

Fucking this.

Fuck those stupid, vapid, vacuous non-entities who instantly hear "Psychology" and then assume you're a fucking stage magician.

Guess what, I'm currently researching a cure to Parkinsons/ Alzheimer's, fucking try to ask me about the Psycho-sexual stages of developemnt, I'll fucking kill you.
You mention mind reading or hypnosis, I'll shit down your throat.

Learn the difference between bullshit and science.

>>4047514

Not a physical "why". That's what Psychology answers.
It's a meta-physical "why".
Philosophy= Meta-why
Psychology= Why

>>4047516
What's the lowdown on anal retentitiveness?
I'm not sure i'm getting it. Also penis envy?

>>4047523

Lololololol, Freud bant.
But seriously, fuck all this cunty arse shit.

>>4047521
sorry i'm being retarded but i'm not getting you. Are you basically asking the question of hard conciousness?

Otherwise would you care to explain...

>>4047529

Fucking hell.

Why do I do "X"?
Psychology- Self preservation/ survival.

Why do I feel a need to Survive?
Philosophy

>>4047499
im gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume youre trolling

>>4047538

What?

You implying that Evolutionary Psychology can't predct future behaviour?
Well, it can.
Obviously, not to an incredible degree of accuracy, but still.

>>4047533
>Why do I feel a need to Survive?
>philosophy

but biology/psychology can explain this right up untill the point where you hit the hard problem of conciousness. surely?

>>4047545

Why do I feel the need to self-actualise?
Not hard conciousness. Just psychologically impossible.

>>4047502
As a CE major I get this everytime

"so you want to build bridges?"

>>4047053
OP are you stupid by any chance?