/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5857131
well its you versus the rest of /sci/ who thinks psychology is still mostly 19th century freudian nonsense.

Because Freud was a faggot.

>>5857151
>>5857157
>Still think Freud is taught in psychology at college level

>>5857165
>>>Still think Freud is taught in psychology at college level

>>well its you versus the rest of /sci/ who thinks psychology is still mostly 19th century freudian nonsense.

>implying

>>5857165
Faggots teaching psychology to other faggots at college levels. What a surprise.

Psychology doesn't produce falsifiable hypothesise. It doesn't have theories, it describes but explains nothing.

Much of it is just extrapolating from empirical data. But of course they can extrapolate anything they want. Also, the scientists in it aren't very rigorous, they'll ignore replication because it isn't novel enough.

becaues they're either:

1. dense
2. autistic
3. illiterate/dumb

>>5857178
Do you honestly have nothing better to do than trolling /sci/ by posting utterly retarded falsehoods?

>>5857178
what do you think psychology mostly consist of?

>>5857178
yeah you're pretty fucking stupid

>>5857178
This

>>5857184
>>5857185
>>5857187
What's the theoretical basis of psychology?

>>5857131
psychology is considered a pseudo-science (or a soft science) because it is rooted in empirics. All of the "hard" sciences have their respective bases in axiomatic concepts, and their laws are arrived at deductively. For all we know about psychology (and it is rather extensive), we could still be wrong. All of that information could be based on a faulty assumption or a set of faulty assumptions. This is what makes it different.

Now, I'm pretty sure this was a joke thread, but I felt compelled to give you a genuine answer in case you really wanted to know OP

>>5857194
We're all mentally sick and need a cure.

>>5857195

>psychology is considered a pseudo-science (or a soft science) because it is rooted in empirics. All of the "hard" sciences have their respective bases in axiomatic concepts, and their laws are arrived at deductively. For all we know about psychology (and it is rather extensive), we could still be wrong. All of that information could be based on a faulty assumption or a set of faulty assumptions. This is what makes it different.

can you belieb dis nigga?

>>5857194
the fact that you are so ignorant to not even know what psychology is means that I am out of this thread and you need to buy a highschool book on basic psycology.

I am a psychologist and I say that you need drugs to be 'cured'. Don't question my authority!

>>5857214
Answer his question.

>>5857222
*psychiatrist
get it right god dammit

>>5857131
>"Incidentally, psycho-analysis is not a science: it is at best a medical process, and perhaps even more like witch-doctoring. It has a theory as to what causes disease - lots of different 'spirits' etc. The witch doctor has a theory that a disease like malaria is caused by a spirit which comes into the air ; it is not cured by shaking a snake over it, but quinine does help malaria. So, if you are sick, I would advise that you go to the witch doctor because he is the man in the tribe who knows the most about the disease; on the other hand his knowledge is not science. Psychoanalysis has not been checked carefully by experiment."

>-- Richard Feynman

>>5857214
This board is about science and math. You should keep your pseudoscience elsewhere. Posting offtopic threads is against the rules.

>>5857228
>It's a great game to look at the past, at an unscientific era, look at something there, and say have we got the same thing now, and where is it? So I would like to amuse myself with this game. First, we take witch doctors. The witch doctor says he knows how to cure. There are spirits inside which are trying to get out. ... Put a snakeskin on and take quinine from the bark of a tree. The quinine works. He doesn't know he's got the wrong theory of what happens. If I'm in the tribe and I'm sick, I go to the witch doctor. He knows more about it than anyone else. But I keep trying to tell him he doesn't know what he's doing and that someday when people investigate the thing freely and get free of all his complicated ideas they'll learn much better ways of doing it. Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course.
>-- Richard Feynman

also
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

>>5857228
>appeal to authority

psychoanalysis is only one aspect of psychology. fenman didn't even get into behaviorism which was the major field of psychology in his time and he barely lived to see the rise of cognitive psychology

>>5857207
? Is there some reason you think that I am wrong in my assessment?

>Why do people say psychology isn't a sceince?

Because they are mad over their low IQ scores.

>>5857257
you gotta love /sci/. every day there's always a thread discussing some sort of mental metric invented by a psychologist who intended it to be a tool to help diagnose mental retardation and it was bastardized by other psychologists to turn it into some sort of measurement for distinguishing mental capacity.

>>5857234
Did you just question my authority?
My diagnosis of you is that you have a 'mental disorder'. Come to my office and I'll have your pills ready. Don't worry, I will cure you of your rebellion.

>>5857257>>5857273

IQ is bullshit

>>5857338
How low did you score? Did you cry after receiving the results?

>>5857346
A single number doesn't tell you anything

>>5857367
It does, irregardless of whether you like it or not.

>>5857367
You're avoiding the question.
Did you or did you not cry after receiving the results? Yes or No.

>>5857375
Where's the science behind IQ tests?

>>5857382
psychology

>>5857382
The science is in your tears that you cried after receiving your results.

>>5857384
>>5857386
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views

>>5857375
wow...you actually took the time to type out the word irregardless. Go sit in the corner.

>>5857389
Quantum physics has criticism too. Peer review and criticism are important for scientific theories. Thanks for confirming once again how scientific IQ is.

>>5857414
Psychometrics rejects IQ as an outdated method incompatible with modern methods of neuropsychology. There are other facets of intelligence.

>>5857423
>There are other facets of intelligence.

No, there aren't. IQ is the definition of intelligence. There are other skills that can be measured but their name isn't "intelligence". The only reason you want to redefine intelligence is because you're embarrassed over your low IQ score.

>>5857423
>There are other facets of intelligence.
Crying is not one of those facets.

>>5857426
IQ is CORRELATED with intelligence, and it's a weak correlation. If you open any recent textbook on cognition you'll see that you're the one redefining intelligence. Also, I have a fairly high IQ, tested during my childhood.

>>5857427
Personal attacks are an indicator of low intelligence.

>Why do people say psychology isn't a sceince?

Because neuroscience and philosophy are better than psychology.

>>5857435
>Personal attacks are an indicator of low intelligence.
Says who?

>>5857444
But psychology IS philosophy.

>>5857447
The same person who said crying is not a facet of intelligence.

>>5857455
that must be why there are two distinctly different words for them that aren't listed anywhere as synonyms.

>>5857455
No it's not.

Why do people say psychology isn't a science? Because a large portion of the people that hold degrees in psychology say it isn't a science. It can be a science when approached correctly, but a large enough portion do not that I am unwilling to call it a science as a whole.

>>5857455
Philosophy: pursuit of wisdom.
Psychology: You are attracted to your mother.

>>5857195
Don't conflate pseudoscience with soft science, you ignorant fuck. And no, I'm not a psychology student.

>>5857468
>I am part of that group of people who still think that psychology is about weird mother complexes

>>5857477
Don't you love your mother?

>>5857477

>psychology
>not about weird complexes

The mother one is just one of the more "famous" ones.

>>5857477
Give one example of a psychological complex that is NOT weird.

You can't.

>>5857477

>I am a part of a group of idiots who is ashamed that the inventor of psychology was a complete quack

>>5857467
>a large portion
[citation needed]

>>5857488
You sir are quite right, indeed.

So how did psychologists come to abandon the theories of Freud?

Did they, you know, actually test them using the scientific method? Or did they just sort of realize how retarded Freud was and abandon Freudian Psycho-analysis after talking about it a lot?

>>5857505
Good question.

I don't think lowly of psychology but the people that take it.....

allow me to share an anecdote; a girl from my old school, we have many mutual friends so would see each other fairly frequently but I never really knew her well. Skip to 2nd year uni (for me), she spent 1 year in another country but returned to do psychology. I'm enrolled in a Bsc pharmacology and I had 1 'free' paper to take to make up points this semester, so i took an easy GPA boosting sporsci paper. She's also taking sportsci 101 but by god she couldn't grasp concepts; See Appendix 1. Now she's obviously enrolled in the faculty of science also - so she's completing a Bsc. But it made me think, she's going to graduate (yes, she will graduate she's doing above average in psych) with a Bachelor of Science and still be absolutely fucking useless at all things I consider vital to science.

APPENDIX 1:
First half of sportscience is mathematics and physics.
>resolving vectors
>can you explain2me plz?
>Explain resolving vectors in about 4 different ways, 3 anecdotally like (3 hyenas are pulling on a bit of meat, these ones are strong, which way does the meat go?)
>After about 40 minutes she can do the maths like a fucking monkey but still goes "uuum. uugh i just don't get it".
>Later on I go to a tutorial with her and she asks the tutor about resolving vectors
>mfw
>tutor spends another 10 minutes trying to explain
>Anon how do YOU do all of this if you never took physics at highschool?
>(by not being retared) "I'm not sure... i was good at maths i guess"
>always complains about "WHY do we need to know this?? This isn't relevant to me."

BONUS APPENDIX:
>struggles with archimedes principle like everything else physicsy
>Get onto biology aspect
>Touch on a little bit of neuroanatomy
>OH this bits so much easier! I like this!
it disturbs me that she can grasp concepts about the anatomy and basic pathways of the brain but literally cannot do Boyles law Plug and chug questions

>>5857426
Incorrect. IQ is A definition of intelligence. There are other definitions of intelligence.

For instance there is a mathematical savant that can calculate numbers incredibly well (you) but can't handle adapting to novel experiences and theories to the point that because his new shoes are red he throws a massive temper-tantrum as he doesn't like red due to a childhood trauma involving his uncle's throbbing penis in his face.

Psychology is a science. Albeit a science based in probability and biology.

>>5857531
>3 hyenas are pulling on a bit of meat, these ones are strong, which way does the meat go?

Man, sometimes I think I understand I have a rough idea of the intellectual limitations of humanities plebs, and then something like this comes along and makes me wonder how these people even got through the SATs.

>>5857531
>i'm not really a faggot, but here's this part where i sucked a dick
That's what your post is like.

>>5857552
nu-uh
i said I don't think psychology is a bad subject per se. The people that take it aren't too bright though.

>>5857531
Distinctions between crystallized and fluid intelligence. Crystallized entails mostly memory, fluid is the ability to extrapolate and integrate, basically one's creative capacity.

People sub...mmm, maybe 135 pertinent to IQ will lack the latter intelligence. Irdgaf about your career, nor your status, nor how well you can recite your abc's and theorems developed by other men. Discover me something, faggot.

bc unrelenting WELL SCIENCE SAYS, whenever HEY GUYS, WHAT IF

ppl ughppl

>>5857505
freud was already under criticism within a few years from people like jung and honey who had developed other psychoanalytical theories such as the collective unconciousness and the psychosocial theory, instead of the psychosexual theory.

they came to abandon freud and all of that psychoanalytical stuff with the coming of behaviorism. the behaviorists removed all focus on the hidden machinery of the mind and mental states and focus on the things we can only observe:
1. what the environment is
2. how the subject reacts to the environment

the two most important contributions from behaviorism were classical and operant conditioning and they thought they could explain all of human behavior through such (nature vs nurture), but even this approach to psychology had holes to it and had fallen off of the main dominating force in psychology by the 80's

>>5857600
>Distinctions between crystallized and fluid intelligence. Crystallized entails mostly memory, fluid is the ability to extrapolate and integrate, basically one's creative capacity.

this reeks of psychology talk

>>5857131

>>5857131

>>5857771
>>5857780
fixed.

>>5857346
I got 139 and I think IQ tests are bullshit

Come at me

>>5857794
>FUCK! I scored an 89 on my IQ test!! WTFFFF...
>Hm... Ill just add 50 points.... No one will know anyway

>>5857794
They are excellent predictors
Your opinion is largely irrelevant

>>5857375
>irregardless
Please stop saying this, its becoming acceptable vernacular due to overuse and its not only a longer than the word it seeks to replace, but one that reasoning (as opposed to recognition) would lead to understanding it as its own opposite. This is a backwards step in the development of our language, go back to saying regardless.

The ir and less both negate the regard, leaving you with regard.

Professional Psychology is the art of billing to talk and working clients through "models," while at the same time being unable to control, direct, or conclude found mental problems with discreet solutions. It's just over their heads'.

There is also the branch interested in noting human behavior, but this is purely observation and needs to be presented padded in Freudian unproven theories in order to generate interest.

This is not science. Instead it's closer to religion because empirical data is missing.

>>5857839
>being literally this upset about the word "irregardless"
why

Sure is summer in here.

>>5857839
http://imgur.com/sm5Nc9J
lol

Psychology is based on people and people are highly variable.

Results in psychology aren't reproducible and as such fail scientific rigor. For that reason psychology is less of a science than more precise fields like physics and chemistry.

>>5857863
>linking an image on an imageboard
>>>/reddit/

>>5857870
>reddit is inherently bad
I'm studying atm so no i will not take up more time to save and upload

Psychology is enormously steeped in emotions. Their industry never found the conclusive mechanism that triggers them and exhausts them, leading to an atmosphere that is more a child of creative writing then an independent science.

>>5857851
you think the general public isn't interested in things such as IQ (a construct of psychology), memorization and learning, and clinical psychology such as schizophrenia?

>>5857865
you clearly have not read this thread or have a clue on what modern psychology consists of.

>>5857346
126, they're bullshit tests of pattern recognition.

>>5857842

look at /sci/ discuss psychology in one thread while dismissing it here.

>>5858004
the psychologists have tricked us! they've lured us here and are engaging in a meaningful discussion elsewhere!

>False-Positive Psychology : Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant
>http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/pcd%20pubs/simmonsetal11.pdf

Straight from the horse's mouth

>>5857131
Because psychology is an inconclusive jabbering without strong (or sometimes any) supportive theories. Although it's quite good for helping bored housewifes and stressed office workers. Simply listening to them and giving obvious advices is all it takes.
>psychiatrist

Neuropsychology is a science.

Clinical psychology isn't a science. If anything, it's medical practice (and not medical science). It's so much of a pseudo-science that it even makes sociology look good. It's the modern equivalent of witch-doctoring. If you're possessed by an evil spirit (for instance, depression), you must go to a witch doctor (a clinical psychologist) and the witch doctor will drive the evil spirit out of your body by chanting magical spells (therapy).

> I'd say it is as much as physic, chem or biology and have studied them all at gcse and alevels

High school physics isn't real physics, it's pretty much just babby level engineering.

Psychology describes mental patterns and trends, but on the scientific side acts more like a crutch for the arcane aspects of neurobiology, since in truth we know very little about the advanced molecular processes of brain function. Neuroscience works at the problem of understanding our brains from one end, while psych works on the other. Eventually though, neurobiology will be able to give concrete answers as to -why- people do certain things, and eventually make psych obsolete... however, that probably won't happen for a while, maybe not even within our lifetimes.

>>5857794
That's a pretty low score.

>>5858101
you're talking like neuroscience and psychology is mutually exclusive when some aspects of psychology incorporate biology within into its body of knowledge (see journal of biological psychology, aka behavioral neuroscience on wiki).

DSM IV has a whole axis dedicated to mental disorders caused by brain injuries (see phineas gage) or other physical disorders.

you people really need to read a modern psychology textbook and understand the state of psychology today.

>>5858131
90-110 is average.
>90 is a low score
>110 is a high score.

Granted, we can further divide into gradients of high and low.

>>5858013
Basically this.

>Group of faggots get together.
>Put a list of semi-common behaviors together and call it X syndrome.
>Suddenly news report everywhere claim that "The cases of X are growing exponentially! Fight the spread of X and donate to the 'X medical research fund!' "

>>5858013
>dat pic
All this but the "spinning" and the "no real dangers" parts describes me...
How autistic am I?

>>5858891
i also have to add that many people here and laymen elsewhere seems to think that psychology must limit itself to philosophical deduction and embellished guesswork when the goal of psychology is to describe and predict human behavior, even if it uses biology, evolution, human anatomy, or even mathematics.

>>5858916
7/8ths

What the fuck is this?

Psychology is not what you idiots think it is. Modern cognitive psychological theories look like descriptions of complex computer programs and are usually backed with simulations and mathematical models. There is no room for Freud anymore.

It's a broad subject so of course there are still some islands of bullshit left, but they'll go away pretty soon. A lot of students might be annoying hipsters, but they often don't finish - the study load is heavy and there is a lot of interdisciplinarity. Any good research university will also require a great deal of scientific thinking and intelligence to grant you the degree and the dropout rate is one of the highest for a BSc degree.

>>5859078

You are trying waayyy too hard to make psychology look scientific. Could this be an expression of repressed regret at not having pursued a more rigorous career in the hard sciences?

>>5859091
there's more than one person in here who's taken at least an introductory college course in psychology

>>5859091
So true. Yet I lold uncontrollably for about half a minute.

>>5859091
if you've ever used the words "short term" or "long term" memory, then you probably are aware that these terms are derived from computation. there are areas of study that examine computation and psychology that leads to neural networks, which some of you might accept as a subject of study better known as neuroscience.

>>5857475
first of all, I believe it is you who is the "ignorant fuck." If you have some how magic'd a huge distinction between these two terms out of nowhere, congratulations. For all intents and purposes when speaking in a general sense, they are synonyms.
Secondly, next time you post something, try to explain why you disagree instead of perpetuating the stereotype that this whole board is full of antagonistic idiots.

>>5859123
>For all intents and purposes when speaking in a general sense, they are synonyms

no they are not. no one except /sci/ and wannabe STEM students uses the words interchangeably.

>>5859121

>Psychology is neuroscience

Top lel, next you'll be telling me that phrenology is neuroscience, or alchemy is chemistry

>>5859128
you keep saying they aren't and yet you refuse to elaborate. If the distinction is so important to you anon, why don't you inform us all so that we can stop being such ignorant fucks?

it's not a science because it doesn't have a systematic way of predicting things with reliable results that don't change from person to person

>>5859129

why they aren't. i wouldn't lie to you and tell you that they have MRI scans showing activity in regions of the brain that relates mental and brain states, would i?

>>5859146
all you have shown is that you have a wrong, or perhaps at best, an extremely outdated and antiquated knowledge of psychology.

if you think you can prove how the skinner box experiments weren't empirical or trying to test something untestable, then that's on you. as of right now, the psychologists have made their case and it is widely accepted within academia and the general public, as so is with many other psychological theories.

>>5859179

So what is the central theory of psychology. What causes mental illness and how do we test this hypothesis?

>>5859179
you don't seem to understand me. You are saying I am misappropriating those terms by not differentiating between them. I'm asking you, if that's the case, to distinguish them from each other for me so that I don't make the same mistake in the future.

What I am noticing is that you either 1) Don't actually know the difference and have no evidence to back up your claim, so you keep repeating yourself, or 2) Know that there is no difference and are getting a rise out of me.

If you're trolling, good job. If you aren't, I don't understand why you are trying so hard to keep people ignorant instead of enlightening someone who is willing to listen. Either way you make me sad.

>>5859179
Skinner box experiments are for animals. How can you draw conclusions from that for the psychology of human beings?

>>5859197
he's just a good troll. we all got had.

>>5859197

So what do you think humans are, vegetables?

>>5859244
No wonder your field is so shit if the majority of you think this way. I mean really..

>>5859244

Did you never study cladistics? Humans are choanoflagellates.

>>5859186
there are many causes of mental illness. DSM IV has axes and chapters of mental disorders that range from developmental to pyscho-pathological.

schiziophrenia is a well known mental disease that occurs all over the world and the hypothesis for the cause of schizophrenia is caused by an overactive dopamine system. we have drugs reduce dopamine and seratonin and patients usually show some response to these treatments while talking therapy shows no effectiveness at all in treating schizophrenics. we also have studied brains of schizophrenics and shown that they have different brain structures than a normal person. we have evidence that for and against the dopamine hypothesis.

there's tons of other mental diseases with different causes and treatments but this is just one example.

>>5859183
from the NSF
>Pseudoscience is defined here as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"

lets work with that. in many modern psychological experiments, we have supporting evidence and plausibility.

>>5859197
animal models are assumed to be a simplified learning models of humans. we still use behavioral theories to stop retards from eating paint chips and to help autistic because they are the most effective in treatment. think about variable ratio reinforcement next time you hit the slot machines.

>>5859197
i wonder that sometimes myself why we use animal models at all in medicine. chimps would probably be the most suitable since they share most of our DNA, but mice?

>>5859261
>DSM IV
>we have drugs
>we also have studied brains
No, you don't/didn't. Please stay on-topic.

>local perky psychiatrist

The problem with psychology is alot of stuf "depends." It's too subjective or inconsistent to mark. There are good things like memory(implicit) and Classical/ operant conditioning. They still can't even agree on the use of facial expressions though. There's no way to every be anywhere near sure about anything in psychology most of the time...

>>5859261
I'm confused as to how this makes a distinction between pseudoscience and soft science. They are both defined as sciences lacking in conclusive evidence. Calling something a pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have evidence to support it in some way. I think you're caught up on terms that you've been defining too narrowly your entire life, which is fine, but you need to understand that there is a broader definition out there that is commonly used.

read your definition again. It says "lack[ing] supporting evidence and plausibility." Supporting evidence is defined here
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/supporting+evidence
The thing about psychology is that all of the evidence used to make psychological theories are rooted in empirics and ultimately based on assumptions that cannot be arrived at deductively. Therefore it lacks supporting evidence. You seem to think of this as more negative than it is.
plausibility http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plausibility
is defined as validity, which again psychology does not have for the aforementioned reasons

>>5859197
actually, there was one experiment in a war where the chinese p.o.w camp supervisors conditioned U.S. troops to start writing letters to the U.S. government saying good things about their captors and critiquing the U.S. government. They did this offering them better food and such progressively as they became more willing to write and before long well...they were praising Communist China in there letters to get good treatment...
Plus more about what he said about conditioning retards and what not to help them do better things

>>5859364
Was there a control group of prisoners who kept getting shit food?

>>5859369
It's all explained in this pamphlet

simple answer is because it isn't rooted in math so deeply compared to sciences like chemistry and physics, and biology(and botany too kinda) are on such a larger scale than psychology you cant really compare.

i didnt realise /sci/ meant Scientology

>>5857228

psychoanalysis =! psychology, faggot.

>>5857488

>Freud
>inventor of psychology

where did you learn that? On facebook? leddit?