/sci/ - Science & Math

it doesn't have to be bullshit, it's just it often is. the methodology often isn't scientific.

There's no math or thought involved. Just learning Freud and Jung, and mix it up with some pseudointellectual psychobabble, and presto, instant BS.

>>4610338

Pretty much this. It has all the potential to be a rigorous science, but so far it's really just people who jump on any chance to lob off a chunk of somebody's brain.

>>4610365
>Freud and Jung
you know psychoanalysis is laughed at by modern psychologists?

>>4610365
Are you joking? Nobody takes Freud and (to an extent) Jung seriously anymore

Shows how little you know.

>>4610368
You...you think people still get lobotomies?

>>4610332
People who honestly think that psychology is a bs field are retarded.
People who claim to think that psychology is a bs field are joking or trolling (or both).

The tendency to act like this comes from the fact that it's way easier to get away with shitty publications. And as a consequence, there is more shitty research. [then in hard science]

Also, some people can't without quantification.

The routes of investigation one need to take to study the high level phenomenons of human interaction can not be reduced to mathematics yet, and even if it could the data would hardly make any sort of sense to a human observer. Thus the field of psychology studies things that make some aspies conducting 'hard science' uncomfortable because they are not dealing with phenomena they can understand. The field has it's share of bullshit, but on a whole it studies something extremely important as human psychology is a filter covering all aspects of our lives. One do not need to understand the underlying workings of a system in order to be scientific about it. Newton knew nothing about quantum mechanics after all, yet he could uncover useful information.

>>4610365
>There's no math involved

Statistics is math

>>4610370

>You...you think people still get lobotomies?

That's kind of the point, isn't it? On the drop of a hat, every second psychologist jumped on the lobotomy train and started brandishing that scalpel left right and centre. Then just as suddenly they stopped. You want to tell me that their reasoning was based on rigorous, empirical analysis? Facts don't change as quickly as fancies.

>>4610365

Implying Freud put no thought into his work.. -_-

>>4610377
Ask any psychologist what a binomial series is and they'll just stare at you. Ask them if a random coin toss comes up 3 times in a row as heads, what are the odds it will be tails on the next throw, and they'll get it wrong everytime.

Psychology is pure BS for those people who can't handle a STEM field.

>>4610370
Sorry, but some people still take it seriously.

As people already mentioned, it is not...in general. Psychology has so much to offer to science, to medicine (in general), to rehabilitation and to education! But unfortunately this field, among others, is in "dire" need to be purged from unscientific bullshit.

...questionnaires NEVER EVER yield an accurate, reproducible result that allows the falsification of a hypothesis. God damn I hate questionnaire studies...

>>4610386
Good point, but lobotomies were only used (at least to begin with) on patients with severely debilitating conditions, extreme schitzophrenia, bipolar etc. before there were effective psychotropic medications.

Once these medications were developed and the full extent of the damage lobotomies did became known, it stopped. That seems logical to me.

Majoring in psychology here. It's a controversial field because there is so much stuff in it.

Freud, Jung, Lacan, Reichi and all those fags were cancers and strongly pseudoscientific.

Rogers and other "hug-therapy" deserve some credit for effectiveness, but are basically applied philosophy powered by common sense.

Pavlov got it right but was eclipsed by Freud's derpery. Skinner brought it all back with power and set the path straight back to science and discovery rather than the current trend of revelational psychology.

Then came neuroscience and cognitive theory and we became best bros with science as we should have fucking done a fuckload of time ago.

Then there is "social" psychology which is just a circlejerk around Marx and other not even close to science shit about how everything that disagrees with Marx is idealism produced by evil capitalists wanting to maintain the status-quo.

Overall there is a split coming about. While cognitivists, neuroscience and behavioral analysis want to do real science, philosofags and marxists keep saying shit like "science can't fully understand mankind" or "the inner workings of the mind transcend logic".

>>4610386
>Fads never existed in physics
>Fads never existed in chemistry
>Fads never existed in medicine
lrn2history of science

>>4610392
Some people still take homeopathy seriously. Doesn't mean shit.

>>4610402
Scientists? Well it's probably because the shitty teachers working at the colleges. It's up to them to form the new students.

>>4610391
>makes bullshit universal statement
>claims to be scientific

>>4610394

Sure, if we conclude that all those lobotomies performed were just experiments, I agree completely. It was a laudable attempt to study the effect of psychosurgery on human patients. But if this was treated as an actual procedure, which I believe it was, then this indicates that all those practitioners were *convinced* that lobotomies were the right way to go, even without the empirical evidence. And that's not science.

Think about this my fellow Aspergers. Mathematics and hard science provides us with nuclear weapons and the ICBM's to carry them. But it is human psychology that is making the calls whether or not to push the button. Does this concern us? Should we attempt to establish working models of how it operate? Or should we just conduct 'hard science' researching stem cells so when the shit hit's the fan and we stand in the nuclear cross-hair the best advisors available to the president conclude "well now, this behavior is consistent with what we know about a chemical configuration where Adolf Stalin's seratonin levels are low. We should correct for this by conducting some gene therapy :) "

>>4610434

You're on a board talking to the kind of guys who get mad when game theory doesn't work in practice because people have emotions.

>>4610401
phlogiston

>>4610444
Greentext is the universal signal of disagreement and sarcasm.
Replace "never" by the empty string to see what I meant to say.

Call it ESP, call it "psychic", call it telepathy, I don't give a fuck. Just start fucking studying it!

If brains are capable of emitting and receiving electromagnetic frequencies, there is absolutely no reason for us to assume any of these concepts are impossible.

We have the largest brain-to-body ratio in the animal kingdom. I refuse to believe we haven't learned how to interpret these frequencies to at least some degree.

>>4610434
That sounds dangerous. I propose that we outlaw psychology to avoid such dangers.

>>4610533
This.

I know /sci/ likes calling this stuff psuedo science.

But honestly:
1) Fish are capable of electrolocation
2) Dolphins are capable of electrolocation

That means that the organs necessary for electrocommunication have been present in animal genes, even after our transition to land. There's no reason to assume that humans "don't have it". Because honestly, it's in the most obvious place it can be.

Pic related.

It's not like I'm going to be able to ask someone to go get me a Coke just by thinking about it. But it's not that unreasonable to think we can detect "emotions" when we're close to people.

>>4610540
those animals have the sensory organs to detect weak electrical signals and the organs to generate them too. humans don't. and it's not like human anatomy isn't the best known anatomy of all.

it's like saying maybe humans lay eggs because some animals do.

>>4610533
Animals don't do it with their brains. They do it with organs. We don't have those organs.

As a person who is doing Psychology as something to do before I go into a BSc, I do agree a good part of Psychology is not scientific. It is subjective. It is very much down to the individual but that is because it is the study of individuals.

There are parts of psychology such as Neuropsychology and Cognitive Psychology which are definitely scientific and then there are parts which are not scientific and I hate learning that part.

But one thing to remember with Psychology is that is a baby science compared to Physics or Maths. And the brain is such a complicated thing and with 7 billion people in the world, you can imagine the differences in that complex thing. And I can definitely say it is not perfect, but it works with what we know and what we know is constantly changing.

>>4610546
>>4610552
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1729/663.abstract

>Our results show that electroreceptors can evolve from a mechanosensory organ that nearly all mammals possess and suggest the discovery of this kind of electroreception in more species, especially those with an aquatic or semi-aquatic lifestyle.

>>4610552
>>4610546
http://engineering.mit.edu/live/news/1785-can-brain-waves-interfere-with-radio-waves

>The human brain also emits waves, like when a person focuses her attention or remembers something. This activity fires thousands of neurons simultaneously at the same frequency generating a wave—but at a rate closer to 10 to 100 cycles per second.

>>4610552
>>4610546
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=could-certain-frequencies

>Radiation is energy and research findings provide at least some information concerning how specific types may influence biological tissue, including that of the brain. In some cases the effect may be therapeutic. For example, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a technique used to induce a short-term interruption of normal activity in a relatively restricted area of the brain by rapidly changing a strong magnetic field near the area of interest.

>>4610582
>>4610578
>>4610571
Tl;dr

The brain potentially IS that extra-sensory organ, especially the outerlayers.

Another link of significant interest:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/320173

With current discoveries like Neuroplasticity, I don't know why anyone would find something like telepathy to be all that shocking.

>>4610540
>>It's not like I'm going to be able to ask someone to go get me a Coke just by thinking about it. But it's not that unreasonable to think we can detect "emotions" when we're close to people.
>>can detect "emotions" when we're close to people.

Sorry, but bullshit. Replace detect with realize, then it's k. AND ONLY if you give the right context:
-We saw it
or
-We heard it

>>4610590
What authority do you have on this subject?

It's one thing to prove something is possible. It's another to prove that something is "impossible".

Better provide sources, pal. Last I checked, humans were both capable of receiving and emitting electromagnetic waves with their brains.

>>4610604
>receiving electromagnetic waves with the brain
[citation needed]

>>4610612
See >>4610582

I thought shit like this was common knowledge by now...
Did you even read the thread?

>>4610617
Radiowaves interfering with brainwaves is not the same as the brain receiving radiowaves.
The crucial question is whether information is transmitted.
If I turn on the microwave, it interferes with the wireless. My computer, however, did not receive a signal from the microwave. It's just interference; noise.

You state that the brain can receive radiowaves. I need a citation for that. Not a citation that states the obvious fact that there can be interference.

>>4610629
So let me get this straight, I provide you a link that shows that the brain reacts positively to certain electromagnetic frequencies.

And your response is
>HURR, DAT'S NOT PROOF OF DA BRAIN RECEIVING ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCIES!

I'm done taking you seriously. Fuck off, retard.

>>4610617
>>4610604
Very well.
Biomedical Engineering, ~3 years taking EEG's.
Electroencephalography is the way how "we" measure brainwaves.
Take a look at the picture please. I took it from the internet, but basically the amplification chain, which is necessary for successfully taking the EEG is the same: amplification, filtering, amplification, filtering, amplification, filtering,... quantification.

-The skull is thick. We have to be careful, VERY careful, to not measure noise. We use very sophisticated methods to obtain valid EEGs.

Now, you want to say that it is possible that the brain receives "others" brainwaves; the things that would have to not only pass 1 skull, but rather 2 skulls, and then are interpreted as "emotions" against the background noise?

I was mad when I first read your post. I hope you understand that.

>>4610644
Electronic devices are influenced by radiowaves too. Even if the device in question has no receiver.
Are you saying that my monitor receives GSM signals now?

>>4610659
bump

>>4610665
>>4610659
This

>>4610659
I still consider it possible.
Pic very related.

Forgive the late response.

>>4612630

And here are some supratrochlear nerves.

>>4612640
>>4612635
>>4612630
Just to be clear what I'm driving at here:

Yes. The skull is thick. But it's not a uniform thickness, and sinuses contain nerves that connect directly to the brain.

I find the position of the nasal sinuses to be of particular interest, especially when regarding this link:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/320173

Pic extremely related.

>>4612630
>I still consider it possible.
A lot of things are possible. Doesn't mean it's true. You just want it to be.
There is no evidence that the brain can parse radiowaves or brainwaves.
There is negative evidence against ESP and the likes. So it's most likely not true.

I don't know about real psychologists, but psychology "studies" in the news is often bullshit just to advance somebody's agenda. And then you have people walking around psychoanalyzing people and believing their inane beliefs are actually backed by legitimate research and experimentation.

Fuck psychology.

>If so, why?

Behavioral Neuroscience supersedes it in every possible way.

>>4613018

>psychology "studies" in the news is often bullshit

A lot of "studies" in the news are bullshit, not just psychology.

It has little to do with the actual research though. The PR department of universities fishes around for papers that are soon to be published in peer reviewed journals. If one can be made to sound sensational, they send off a press release to the media and hope it gets picked up by major news outlets.

Oftentimes they barely bother to interview the first author to get context or completely misquote him to make the story interesting.

Pic related

>>4613018
psychoanalyzing people cost me my marriage. >:( stupid fucking required psychology class.

>>4612994
K', brah.

Whatever you say.

>>4612994
But I figure I should just mention, Electrocommunication is a scientifically accepted concept that takes place both in mammals and fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception#Electrocommunication

So yeah. You're pretty much wrong.

>>4613101

> wikipedia

>>4613121
What are you, a middle school teacher?

>>4613152

Nah, I was just messin' 'round with that poster.

Still telepathy is so full of maybes and could bes, which its adherents seem to think as some kind of proof.

Electrocommunication is not ESP, its very much SP.

I can read another's thoughts by hearing them tell me their thoughts. WOW maybe telepathy is possible then.

My only beef with modern psychology is that psychiatrists just want to write a prescription for some happy pills. It's taking the easy way out and it's the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a broken leg. Why go through cognitive-behavioral therapy or anything along those lines? That's more work! Just give the sucker some escritalopram!

>>4613180
The fact that there is a field called cognitive-behavioral therapy is evidence that you are wrong.

>>4613180
psychology =/= psychiatry

>>4613171
I think your expectations of "telepathy" are a little too high.

I mean, seriously. Expect something more along the lines of knowing how a person feels or whether they're excited or not.

Pictures, words, and ideas are very intricate thoughts.

I think that's the biggest problem we have with searching for ESP right now. Emotions themselves are not all that understood. So even if you did share an emotional state with someone, there's no real way of confirming it.

Shit, I mean, think about "Discomfort". If a person was capable of capable of "feeling" other people's discomfort, how would we even test for something like that? The test itself would skew the results. That's ultimately the thing we're dealing with here.

>>4610391

I don't know what your point is, since all the psychology majors at my school have to take stats and would be able to answer those questions, so for now I'll just conclude that your general opinion is that they're stupid for not knowing mathematics they have no need in knowing.

In other words, you're fucking autistic. The same goes for anyone else who shares this tard's opinion

>>4613171
>Electrocommunication is not ESP, its very much SP.
It's considered "ESP" because it's outside of the 5 commonly accepted senses.

I mean, yeah. It has an explanation. But you're treating ESP like it's God. An unreachable concept that science inherently can't discover. At that point, it's just a semantic argument that goes nowhere.

>>4613237

> Emotions themselves are not all that understood.

Yes they are. They're just chemical discharges in your brain.

/thread

>>4613248
>They're just chemical discharges in your brain.
Don't be a fucking smart ass.

It's not that simple.

>>4610589
>With current discoveries like Neuroplasticity, I don't know why anyone would find something like telepathy to be all that shocking.

You do know that there is 1 million USD waiting for anyone to prove this, right? It hasn't happened for years. Why do you think that is so? Because: _____ (insert answer).

Sociological answers makes the BS-meter tick.

>>4613246
>It's considered "ESP" because it's outside of the 5 commonly accepted senses.

There is no such thing as the '5 commonly accepted senses'. Humans have more than 5 senses if one uses a sensible definition. The exact number depends on the exact definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

The number 5 dates back to Aristotle whose ideas were repeated endlessly for multiple decades. This idea is still popular, it seems.

>>4613180
> My only beef with modern psychology is that psychiatrists just want to write a prescription for some happy pills. It's taking the easy way out and it's the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a broken leg. Why go through cognitive-behavioral therapy or anything along those lines? That's more work! Just give the sucker some escritalopram!

Psychiatrists are notably worse than psychologists. From a survey in a textbook i read recently, about 30% of US psychiatrists use psychoanalytic methods. Given that such is pseudoscience leftover from Freud and Jung etc., that means that at least 30% of psychiatrists are pseudoscientists. Depressing.

There is a psychiatrist who is fighting to make the field better. Perhaps check out his works.
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Pseudoscience-Clinical-Psychology-Lilienfeld/dp/1593850700/ref=sr_1_5?
s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329223646&sr=1-5