/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7624928
Neuroscience>Cognitive Science>Psychology.

Done and fucking done.

"Cognitive science is the downfall of psychology"
~ B.F. Skinner

Nuff said

>>7624937
Nice explanation.
Oh ... there is none.
>kek

>>7624928
thread remade with 20% less detectable samefaggotry

>>7624955
That's why nobody invites you to parties, Frank.

>>7624958
kek

>>7624946
Do you not agree? What, you think psychology is better than neurosci or something?

>>7624946
>>7624963
Oh no, not these /b/etards again...

Neuroscience is the only actual science. This is the science board.

>>7624928
They're all bullshit and know next to nothing

>>7624999
What's your major then?
Gender studies?

>>7624928
Notice a giant lack of a single explanation or bit of information in this thread. Just insults and baseless horseshit.

What are we even deciding? Validity? Applicability? job availability? circlejerkability. Why don't you all just admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


That aside, psychology is just undefined terms.
Cognitive science is just data that is only statistically valid. And neuroscientists are poking the most advanced object in the known universe with a stick. They hardly know more of what they're doing in any definitive sense than any of you.

>>7625003
No he's really right. I made my way through all of freud jung and rogers before I accepted it about psych. I made my way through a lot of chomsky and a psycholinguistics textbook before I accepted it about cognitive science, and then really one look at the means and methods of big pharma and it's pretty undeniable that they're making shit up to sell you drugs.

This is silly. There are aspects of human mind and brain that only one of the two, psychology or neuroscience, applies to (e.g., low-level phenomena at the level of e.g. ion gates are not relevant for psychology; but high-level phenomena like e.g. crowd psychology or anchoring are both infeasible to solve from a purely neuroscientific perspective, and are actually near-perfectly described by psychology). There is no fight here.

There's also the border stuff, and here, neuroscientists and psychologists almost always work together (and also include biologists, computer scientists, linguists etc), so close they're often nearly indistinguishable.

Nobody actually in these fields would ask a question like OP. Source? My PhD.

>>7625044
Maybe if we redefined the debate. mind vs matter?
I think that may be what OP was aiming at. But even then that's not going to go any differently than it has since before history.

>>7625042
You're the worst. Freud is psychoanalysis, and nobody in psychology takes them seriously right now, and haven't done so for a few decades. It has almost nothing to do with the field right now.

>>7625037
You're undereducated for making such claims.

>>7625049
No idea what you mean by that. "Mind vs. matter"? What are you thinking with? Me, with a brain. What am I doing with it? Thinking, Next

>>7625052
Indeed about freud. That's why it's also relevant that I read all of carl rogers and all of jung twice.

What claims? Explain yourself, you idiot. You're responding to a complaint about people not explaining themselves. And dude, apart from jung rogers and freud I also made my way through 6 psych textbooks this year on my own. You have no idea what you're talking about. Psychology as a whole, is nothing but undefined terms, blind speculation, and data that is only statistically valid. And the level of certainty with which we operate in prescribing and studying the brain and it's chemistry is fucking laughable.

And as far as mind versus matter, all I mean is that OP might have been trying to aim at a more philosophical discussion wherein he treated as valid some of the assumptions of some schools of thought in psychology and cognitive science. Which include many a theory of mind preceeding matter and having it's own nature.

>>7625061
>And dude, apart from jung rogers and freud I also made my way through 6 psych textbooks this year on my own.
why'd you do that lol

> Psychology as a whole, is nothing but undefined terms,
Name an undefined term?

>blind speculation,
Welcome to science, where sometimes people speculate.

>and data that is only statistically valid.
All data is only statistically valid. This isn't maths. Check what 6 sigma is again.

>And the level of certainty with which we operate in prescribing and studying the brain and it's chemistry is fucking laughable.
Admittedly, we're sometimes overconfident.
You, though, are overconfident in your english skills. Nobody "prescribes brains". Relax and type more slowly.

>>7625069
>You, though, are overconfident in your english skills.
Wow, you're an arrogant cunt.
Using an argumentum ad hominem, because you're losing ground?

>>7625074
You understand it's you who's actually doing the ad hom argument? I made a bunch of points and ended with a note critical of your english. You respond with a post that's entirely about me, instead of the points.

>>7625069
>Why
Because i didn't know yet how useless and pretentious these institutions are.

>id, ego, self, anima, animus, shadow, projection, reflection, ect.
You can call them defined if you'd like, but they're so interchangeable that they're basically useless and never lead anywhere conclusive.
The collective unconscious is the akasha is the shadows on plato's cave, it's all the same interchangeable blind dualistic speculation.

>welcome to science.
Beginning to assume troll if you can't wrap your head around why this applies much more to cognitive science and psych than it does to say chemistry.

>All data is only statistically valid.
Same response as^

>Prescribe brains
Prescribing drugs* and studying the brain. You knew what I meant. You have yet to actually make a valid point. Jesus i've said that so many times on this site. I've got to go before I lose faith in humanity again.

>>7625080
You're confusing him with me.

>>7625080
I'm a different guy and you are a prick.

>>7625037
Good thing about statistics is that they tend to improve humanity, and we are part of humanity.
Look at smoking statistics the rates of "chance of cancer" go down everyday until let's say 20 years pass.. but that only means that you did not harm you genes enough with smoking to cause cancer, it doesn't mean anything else... People tend to interpret statistics as magic, or don't look upon them with the right eye, use the right interpretation and statistics can help you skyrocket in life.

Nothing conclusive about an individual's psychology can be deduced from a fucking discussion with a "doctor"

>>7625081
>>id, ego, self, anima, animus, shadow, projection, reflection, ect.
Psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis.

All psychoanalysis.

Why are you talking about psychoanalysis, I thought the topic was psychology? If you don't understand the difference, I can link you to a wikipedia article.

>You have yet to actually make a valid point
If you don't understand the importance of the observation that data never gives certainty, I recommend some Hume, less internet.

>>7625085
Oh no

>>7625098
No. Freud is psychoanalysis. Jung is analytical psychology. Adler, who shared ideological grounds with each, called his particular brand of nonsense "individual psychology" and they all used these terms. with the exception of anima and animus. You have no idea what you're talking about. You took psych 101 and you remember a bit of freud and you bleed useless stupid out of your mouth at strangers on the internet. You'll realize it eventually. I'm done with you.

>>7625102
Freud was a cool guy his work lead into advertising but the real deal about controlling the masses came from Edward Bernays everything else is garbage m8... and Jung tier stuff is just Indian crap mysticism with the mask of science.

>>7625106
>Never read a single piece of hindi literature

>>7625098
I think you're confusing psychotherapy for psychoanalysis,

>>7625109
It's garbage ;).
Read Prashanti Vahini“, Atena 1997, p. 5
But let's not even start to talk about how garbage tier hinduism is. Go burn some animal fat into fire while you venerate your thousands of gods.

>>7625098
Psychotherapy
psychotherapy

all psychotherapy

Why are YOU talking about psychoanalysis? If you don't understand the difference, i've got a literal mountain of books you have to catch up on.

Your argument is essentially "You can never be really sure of anything, man"

>>7625102
>No. Freud is psychoanalysis. Jung is analytical psychology. Adler, who shared ideological grounds with each, called his particular brand of nonsense "individual psychology"
All of these are psychoanalysis and have nothing to do with contemporary psychology.

>You took psych 101 and you remember a bit of freud
The only thing they'll teach you about Freud in psych 101 is that he's wrong.

>>7625114
No, I'm not.

Psychotherapy usually doesn't use anima or id, these days it's all CBT, which is the opposite of psychoanalysis.
There's also a bit of psychodynamic therapy, which inherits from psychoanalysis, but doesn't use these terms either.

>>7625124
>Your argument is essentially "You can never be really sure of anything, man"
You can be sure of mathematical proofs and analytical statements.

In this world of matter though, 6 sigma is all you're gonna get.

>Why are YOU talking about psychoanalysis?
Because
>>>id, ego, self, anima, animus, shadow, projection, reflection, ect.
are psychoanalytic terms and have nothing to do with contemporary psychology.

>>7625003

Physics, Math, and Engineering

>>7625133
I feel like you and I would actually agree a lot if we could first agree on terminology. Fine, I conceed to you that in my studying psychotherapy i must have missed a lot of contemporary psychology.

>>7625149
cont.

BUT, you are still an arrogant insufferable cunt who was much more concerned with telling me off than being clear and concise.

>>7625037
>And neuroscientists are poking the most advanced object in the known universe with a stick. They hardly know more of what they're doing in any definitive sense than any of you.

Holy fuck you are delusional. Describe how neuroscience is "poking the brain with a stick."

>>7625159
>BUT, you are still an arrogant insufferable cunt who was much more concerned with telling me off than being clear and concise.
For sure.

>>7625149
>I feel like you and I would actually agree a lot if we could first agree on terminology. Fine, I conceed to you that in my studying psychotherapy i must have missed a lot of contemporary psychology.
You know how often I get this shit?

Modern American psychology basically emerged in response to Freud's bullshit. The entire field has formed in response to him. He has not been a factor in literally a hundred years, but for an example of what not to do. You probably know more about Anima and the Id than I do.

And yet, I get this shit - some kid trying to "disprove" psychology by arguing against psycho*analysis* - like twice a week.

>>7625172
TMS and DBS are indeed basically poking the brain with a stick.

(I wish we could finally start getting serious with optogenetics in people.)

>>7625181

Optogenetics would be more stick poking.

>>7625194
A pretty thin stick though. With a pointy end.

>>7625175
Again, I made it all the way to carl rogers. It was no longer psychoanalysis at that point. It was client-centered psychotherapy

>>7625207
Great, you made it all the way to a time when Led Zeppelin were a band and Iran was a US ally and Intel had just presented the 4004.

In clinical psychology.

As I said, these days, it's all CBT (in the clinical domain).

But that's therapy. Therapy is to psychology as engineering is to physics. (With the exception that building bridges turns out to be a lot easier than helping people with OCD.)

This gives you almost, although not quite absolutely, no idea of what the field of psychology looks like today.

>>7625219
Jesus christ have you ever been loved?

>>7625225
Does what your mom did to me count as "love"?

Neuroscience is probably more reliable. Psychology is easy to collect data. Dunno wtf is cognitive science.

>>7624928
Freudian psychology > all of science

>>7625042
Currently a pleb in Intro to psychology and I can't get that thought out of my head. I already get an uneasy feeling that even after a century and a half humans this guy >>7624999
is probably right, these sciences know next to nothing.

For example, at first glance of the current standard for treating depression I find it highly unlikely that we're going to pin depression down to a simple lack of a certain neurotransmitter or decreased white matter in the brain. It's much more likely to be a cocktail of problems varying from individual to individual. Not saying this isn't a fairly recognized viewpoint but the mass prescription of SSRI's is one of the sketchiest things in modern medicine.

“Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing.”

I expected to be learning some real eye opening stuff instead it's pavlov and his salivating dogs alongside experiments done on rats with resulting conclusions drawn about humans.

>>7625037
"psychology is just undefined terms" expand this thought please?

I'm only half way through this thread so far but I agree with you dawg way to keep this shit floating
>>7625061
>>7625042
>>7625037
>>7625049

>>7625044

>>7625096
lmao

>>7625197
lmao so it goes

>>7625364
<~~~Picture of Freud to go with your bait

sorry for shit posting the last 3 contributions

I want to have sex with Freud

>>7625463
Ha. That was me from yesterday. Keep reading. I conceeded that I was talking about "Psychotherapy" as the whole of psychological thought. Apparently I don't know what's happened since the late sixties. But as far as early psychological thought, i'm spot on. the elaborations you seek are lower in the thread

>>7626312
>But as far as early psychological thought, i'm spot on
I promise you, nobody hates psychoanalysis more than psychologists.

>>7625485
>contributions

Daily reminder that people who have """mental illnesses""" that aren't related to any physical deformities or malfunction in their brain/cns/chromosomes, are literally just making shit up or choosing to behave badly

>>7627777
why not in the pns

>>7627788
i guess so, but in any other way, it is all made up
My friend was diagnosed with sever "clinical" depression

I was so fucking pissed that they say shit like that, I told him to man the fuck up.
I showed him videos about how there are people all over the world dying of hunger, dying in prisons, or getting tortured for crimes they didn't commit. I told him about kids in Iraq and Afghanistan who get bombed by drone strikes, for doing absolutely nothing, and that they recieve 0 justice. I tell him about how their are kids who have had to pull their father's or mother's corpses from underneath rubble, because they got bombed by "mistake" or collateral damage, and how the people who do it don't shed a tear because of it, and laugh it off. I told him about how their are children literally dying of hunger, while he gets to fill his fat self up with all kinds of food.

And yet he still feels sad because of what he """went through""""

fucking bullshit

>>7627801
what do you think about ptsd

>>7627809
There are different kinds tbh
The ones from war is definately legit, because you can actually see them going through spasms and shit
Then there are ones from other types of trauma, like violence, rape, abuse etc, and these are legit too
Then there are """""ptsd"""""" from shit like online bullying, online comments, men catcalling you etc, and this is absolute bullshit

But even the other two types, I am still skeptical about it, like you don't hear about jihadists and shit going through ptsd, its usually just western soldiers

>>7627816
I did some googling and do see people talking about jihadists going through that. Maybe it's not something people in western cultures hear about because there is an effort made to dehumanize our enemies or something along those lines.

>>7627801
What a good friend you are, to belittle someone's experience over which they have no control.... To deny their condition even exists because they don't live in the third world... To write off an entire field because it doesn't fit your ignorant worldview. Class act.

>>7624928
What is better, neuro surgeon or neuroscientist?

>>7628230
what is better a pilot or an engineer