/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8230981
>not accepting universal grammar

>>8230981
This pyramid might be beyond your comprehension but it's essential to psychology.
I disagree with certain things, ie socialization comes before safety, but it's a very, very important piece of information.

>>8230990
Wouldn't the fact that one can arbitrarily decide the order of each "need" suggest that the pyramid isn't very scientific?

>>8230993
yes
>"achieving one's full potential"

>>8230990
what does the pyramid mean?

>>8230998
The idea of the pyramid is that people need to meet each of the needs on the bottom levels before they can achieve the needs on the higher levels. IE you can't have fulfilling friendships without meeting your physiological needs, no reaching esteem needs without reaching love needs, and so on. Based on this construct, most people never reach the top of the pyramid.

The problem is is that there isn't evidence to support any of these ideas and the order of the pyramid is arbitrary. Hence why its in a bad psychology thread.

>>8230990
interesting to know that the dude who made it skeched it while observing his wife talk to her female friends

>>8230990
In the middle of a desert in Africa and being chasen by a bunch of 10 tigers. More ahead there's a friendless lemonade seller. Behind his shadow there's a cave to hide. Are you going to stop and socialize with him, or are you going to run inside the cave?

It's an interesting way to look at it, doesn't mean it's either bad or that it answers everything.

Empirical evidence is important in psychology, but it's also important to get a criteria in order to predict stuff and make further studies, otherwise you're trying to make a hard science. This isn't physics and what might be true 50 years ago might not be today because humans change.

For example, studying Freud is important, but if you stay with his outdated views you're doing it wrong. Completely dismissing him is also wrong. On what? That's where you form your criteria.

>>8231016
haha that's one type of safety I guess.

Here are some other types from wiki:
Personal security
Financial security
Health and well-being
Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts


I believe for example that having intimate human contact is more important than financial security, it's better to be broke than crazy from loneliness.

But some types of security are obviously due to dangers more immediate and more damaging than loneliness.

>>8231008
You might as well discover a new fluid dynamics principle while looking at your sperm, it doesn't matter.

>>8230981
>>>Bad psychology
>ctrl+F Jean Piaget
>0 of 0

Come on /sci/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw33CBsEmR4

>>8230981
Nightmare mode: post good psychology

>>8231109
Skinner?

>>8230990
What are you talking about. The pyramid starts from the bottom up. It clearly says safety comes before friendship

>>8231019
>Empirical evidence is important in psychology, but it's also important to get a criteria in order to predict stuff and make further studies, otherwise you're trying to make a hard science. This isn't physics and what might be true 50 years ago might not be today because humans change.

Behaviorists would disagree with this.

>>8231120
>behaviorism
kek

>>8231210
Whats wrong with behaviorism?

>>8231217
it relies on the powers of general intelligence or domain general learning mechanisms, which can't account for certain things humans know by a young age without any positive evidence from their environment..

>>8231217
>completely ignoring the mechanisms of action

it's a retarded approach, although it has it's place.
most people are too stupid to understand the underlying mechanisms anyway, so it's better to make a table listing stimuli and behavior.

the trolley problem

>>8231279
the trolley problem

a) Is about ethics, not psychology
b) Is a great filter to pick out morons

>>8231317
>b) Is a great filter to pick out morons

Please elaborate

>>8231336
>>8231317
Also curious what you mean. I always though it was supposed to be a paradox.

>>8230981
>Safety needs
>Safety

Why do this?

>>8231230
Could you clarify what you mean by this?

>>8231258
Its a bit more complicated then that.

>>8231258
I think you are confusing the environmental function of a behavior with the biological mechanisms of a behavior. They aren't mutually exclusive: knowing the mechanisms of a behavior doesn't explain why the organism would engage in such behavior.

>>8231626
>Could you clarify what you mean by this?
My exposure to behaviorism is through lingusitics, where the behaviorist approach has been largely discarded since Chomsky's review of Skinner's book "Verbal Behavior." The behaviorist approach assumes that, in language acquisition, all linguistic knowledge a child has is extracted from the child's environment. The idea is that when a child gets a positive response for some linguistic output, it learns that it is how to use the language. When they get a negative response, they learn that whatever they said to elicit that response is incorrect. It goes along with the intuition parents have when they attempt to teach their kids to talk; parents will constantly try to get their kids to say certain words, "mama" or "dada" for instance, and they give the kid praise when they get it right.

However, when you start to understand some of the more technical things we do with our languages, you start to realize children can't be learning these things through the trial-and-error-like method assumed by behaviorists. For example, take the phenomenon of subject-auxiliary inversion in English. In English, when we form questions (and in a few other cases), we switch the order of the subject noun phrase and the main auxiliary verb. E.g.
>The boy is happy.
>Is the boy happy?
cont.

>>8231904
These kinds of constructions come up all the time, so it should be no trouble for a kid to learn that's how it works. But there's a problem. What happens when there are two auxiliary verbs in the sentence, such as in the following?
>The boy who is playing is happy.
These kinds of sentences are possible in English, but they are extremely uncommon compared to single-auxiliary sentences, especially in child-directed speech. In fact, corpus studies have shown that the number of multiple-auxiliary sentences in child-directed speech is insignificant. Of course, as native English speakers, we know what to do to make a question out of this sentence,
>Is the boy who is playing happy?
The question is, how does a child know? Because children are not exposed to a significant number of multiple-auxiliary sentences, just single-auxiliary ones, the simplest hypothesis they could make given the data available to them is that question formation requires that the first auxiliary in the sentence be fronted. When put in a situation where they have to form a question from a multiple-auxiliary sentence then, you would expect the child to apply their (incorrect) hypothesis that the first auxiliary needs to be fronted. For the example sentence above, that would yield the following ungrammatical utterance,
>Is the boy who playing is happy?
The child would then receive a negative response, and try a new hypothesis next time.
The problem is, children literally never make this mistake, they will always produce the correct form,
>Is the boy who is playing happy?
It's as if they never entertain the first-auxiliary-fronting hypothesis at all, and instead resort immediately to using structural distance, not linear order, as the criterion for which auxiliary gets fronted, even though using linear order is strictly simpler.

There are also other mistakes that children never make, but which you would expect them to make if they were learning with domain-general mechanisms.

>>8231904
>>8231916
I probably should have started with this, but the whole idea is basically that children don't have enough data to learn things like the subject-auxiliary inversion rule without some innate knowledge. The argument is called the Poverty of Stimulus.

>>8231904
>>8231916
>chromsky's review
Its generally not taken serious by most psychologists. The review attempted to attack Skinner but instead attacked a position that Skinner himself debunked decades before the review. It was more an attack on methodological behaviorism which Skinner didn't adhere to nor do most modern behaviorists. Although Chromsky does attack Skinners arguments regarding "Verbal Behavior," those arguments still misrepresented Skinners positions. For example, Skinner never claimed that reinforcement was necessary for verbal behavior to occur despite Chromsky suggesting that Skinner did. I recommend reading MacCorquodale's review on Chromskys review.

>>8231917
I should clarify that even methodological behaviorists didn't believe that people were blank slates. People often believe Watson did due to a quote of his taken out of context (the quote was mocking biological determinism and making a contrast to show the absurdity of it).

>>8231924
then what is the real argument if Chomsky got it wrong

>>8231926
Its not something that I have enough expertise to explain it well. I recommend instead reading Skinners Verbal Behavior and MacCorquodale's review on Chromsky if you want to understand Skinners position better.

>>8230981
>freud is bad psychology
look if you haven't accepted the fact that you have sexual feelings about your mother that's your fault, ok? best psychologist i've seen (of 6) thought freud's theories were still useful to his field.

>>8231947
Freud proudly considered himself anti science, meaning that he didn't use the scientific method at all when creating his theories. This means many of his ideas are either untestable or have been shown to be inaccurate.

>>8231217
Behaviorism ignored genetics and anything that is not learnt. Noone is behaviorist today. Its cognitive behaviorism nowadays in academia.

ITT: people who have never taken a psychology course.

>>8231958
>anti science
oh, there we go, another retarded fag from reddit.

the guy that invented the wheel was anti-science, his contribution was still essential to humanity.

Freud did a great job for his time and many of the things he said are pretty much proven to be true.

>>8232243
The pro-Freud guy is definitely one of them.

>>8230981
>bad psychology
Pretty much everything that isn't evolutionary psychology.

>>8230981
Is Chromsky a typo?

>>8231016
Tigers in a desert in Africa? God damn. At least make this shit believable.

>>8230981
Daily reminder that psychology is gender studies tier.

all posts above mine are troll posts

>>8231958
I think the major revelation in psychology comes from longitudinal studies. And we all know how hard those are to maintain.

case histories.

>>8231109

attachment theory is pretty good famalam

psychometrics in general

the theoretic background to CBT is good

>>8232392
/thread

>>8232248
The difference is the guy who invented the wheel didn't have the scientific method yet. Freud did but denied to use it and instead just made up his own theories.

>>8232229
Thats not true, not even methodological behaviorists ignored genetics. Skinner repeatedly emphasized the importance of genetics and biology in a variety of his texts. Behaviorists emphasize unconditioned stimuli/responses and unconditioned reinforcers and punishers to be vital to understanding how behavior works and both of which has biological origins.

>>8233013
I think you might be confused about the position you're arguing against. Nobody claims that behaviorism does not believe in biology generally. The argument is that "unconditioned stimuli/responses and unconditioned reinforcers and punishers" are not sufficient to account for human knowledge, for example in language acquisition. Some innate knowledge is required. That innate knowledge must be a product of human biology and evolution.

>>8231192
>You might as well discover a new fluid dynamics principle while looking at your sperm, it doesn't matter.

Yeah but behaviorism has been dead for several decades now. It's much better offspring, cognitive-behaviorism, is much better on this regard.

>>8231230
Also, this pretty much.

>>8233167
Perhaps I didn't clarify well enough. Behaviorists believe that some behaviors are due to biological/genetic factors: examples include elicited responses to unconditioned stimuli, the ability to find food/water reinforcing, and fixed action patterns. Hell, even the ability for organisms to take part in operant conditioning and respondent conditioning are said to be inherited.

Behaviorists however have a problem with what is called explanatory fiction. They are mental constructs used to explain why a behavior occurred despite lackluster evidence, common examples include the idea of a mind. The problem with explanatory fiction can be explained like this (excuse the simplicity of the example): How did the person acquire language? Because of a language acquisition device. How do we know this device exists? Because the person developed language.

>>8231947
Freud's theories will be forever useful because they help you understand where some ideas came from in psychology. Some of Freud's ideas are still. in fact, used today, albeit in a different way.

Oedipus complex is no longer a sexual attraction, but to deny that there is a part in the life of an infant where there is a very close attachment to your mother/father/primary caretaker is dishonest. In fact, it isn't uncommon at all for children to say that they will marry their parents, but they don't actually know what that MEANS yet.

In short Freud's ideas are commonly misinterpreted and people don't realized that they have evolved.

>>8232340
>being this retarted

>>8233217
>behaviorism has been dead for decades
I love this meme. Many cognitive behaviorists consider themselves radical behaviorists (the type of behaviorism skinner described) and many of the key philosophies and methods of psychology are behavioral. Behaviorism as a field is actually growing and is the key philosophy behind the most effective treatments of developmental disorders and phobias as a few examples.

>>8233013
Yeah and simplified humans to a bunch of lab rats in the process.

>>8233234
Except radical behaviorism exists which emphasizes the importance of mental activity as behavior, something that Skinner actively established.

>>8231109
Neuropsych is pumping some pretty good shit out

>>8233230
>>8233230
Pure behaviorism isn't a thing since several years ago. Yes, behaviorist techniques are still used, especially in little children, but it isn't leading people anywhere and the general consensus is that a behaviorist approach will not solve the underlying problem.

Cognitive-behaviorism inherited the useful and practical parts about behaviorism while ditching the "humans are lab rats" part.

>>8233243
See >>8233239. I am not sure that you understand what "pure behaviorism" is. Cognitive behaviorist and behaviorists have very similar assumptions: but the big difference is whether or not the mind is a useful mechanism for explaining behavior.

>>8233254
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism

. It assumes that the behavior of a human or an animal is a naturally occurring reflex produced by stimuli in the environment,

Reflex, i.e., we're not active on our decision making.

I know it's a useful approach and respect it's contributions, and like with all science it's sometimes necessary to focus on an aspect of reality, but I can't agree on the underlying principle of behaviorism, and I don't think anyone else does.

Yes, maybe Skinner revised his theory later on, but so did most authors. Even Freud did that.

>>8233303
Wanted to add that in fact, behaviorism arose to critique depth psychology, i.e. Freud and Jung and the like, and wanted to make a fully measurable field. They wanted to make psychology a hard science.

>>8230981
What is wrong in my psyche if yellow and blue are very numbed down in me so I can fast forward up to spending time at the orange tip?

>>8233303
>thinking wikipedia would have a comprehensive definition of behaviorism
Wikipedia's definition only includes at most a portion of respondent conditioning when operant conditioning is actually the more significant factor in behavior (IE the type of conditioning where consequences affect the likelyhood of a behavior and something that isn't considered reflexive.)

Skinner revised and improved the theories of his colleagues. The definition you provided may have been accurate before Skinner's contributions, but Skinners emphasizes on behaviors based on consequences and the importance of mental activity as behavior revolutionized the field.

>>8233222
>How did the person acquire language? Because of a language acquisition device. How do we know this device exists? Because the person developed language.
The behaviorist position can be similarly misrepresented, presenting it as an appeal to essentially magic (mysterious general intelligence abilities).
The status of a language acquisition device is up in the air. I think the most popular stance is that Universal Grammar plus domain-general learning is sufficient for language acquisition, but the innate knowledge of Universal Grammar is certainly required. The hypothesis of Universal Grammar is motivated by the poverty of stimulus argument. It is not circular reasoning. My understanding is that behaviorism rejects the notion of Universal Grammar. Instead, they believe that unconditioned stimuli/responses can account for language learning.

Here's another example where some innate knowledge is required in language acquisition. For a long time it was thought that statistical learning could account for word segmentation without any innate knowledge. The idea was that transitional probabilities between adjacent syllables drop significantly at word boundaries, so word boundaries can be postulated by the learner at those local minima. The method works great for continuous sequences of, say, three-syllable words, because the transitional probability drops are very drastic. However, the problem is that the vast majority of speech, at least in English, consists of single-syllable words, one after the other. That means there are effectively no local minima, and the method fails when applied to actual speech. It turns out though that if you introduce the Universal Grammar principle that a word has a pitch peak, then the method starts to work.

>>8233311
There is nothing wrong. You are an alpha unit. Designed to be an engineer or a scientist.

You could probably figure out how the procedure works even, but it would be counterproductive as no one would believe you anyway and you would likely end up with your feet dangling in a lighthouse.

>>8233311
The Internet allows people to bypass yellow and receive to receive esteem needs from video games and social media.


Without the belonging of yellow being self-actualized means you're just a tool.

>>8233311
The Internet allows people to bypass yellow and makes it possible to receive esteem needs through video games and social media.


Without the belonging of yellow it's safe to say that being self-actualized means you're just a tool.

>>8233336
Isn't universal grammar an untestable theory though. The impression I am getting from this is that we don't know everything about verbal behavior yet therefore some aspects of language must be universal.

>>8233391
Both yes and no. I agree digital communication can have the effect you mention. But I really think a strong need to belong has a destructive effect on creativity. It makes us anxious to deviate which greatly limits our potential.

>>8233440
"our potential" seems you have ulterior motives

>>8233459
English is not my mother tongue, and I honestly don't care enough to learn it well because it is so redundant.

I intended to talk about a generic person.

If said person has a large need to belong he/she will not dare to deviate. The persons brain will automatically learn to weed out things which is deemed to deviate too much to protect the need to belong.

>>8233417
No. Universal Grammar is a theory, not a hypothesis, and as such it is no more or less falsifiable than any other theory. Hypotheses are tested which support or detract from the theory in the usual scientific way.

It isn't that we just don't know how certain things work, therefore they must be biologically innate, it's that we know that statistical learning alone cannot account for many phenomena such as the ones I mentioned. Either there's magic going on, or humans have something in addition to simple statistical learning or general intelligence at their disposal.

Consequently, different principles are hypothesized to be innate. For instance, one principle might be that human language makes use of syntactic structure, not linear order of words, in dependency formation. We would then hypothesize that this principle is part of UG. That's a falsifiable hypothesis. All it would take to disprove it would be to find a linguistic phenomenon which uses linear order when it could use syntactic structure, and the hypothesis is out.

Of course, the outcome of that single hypothesis does not confirm or deny the theory of UG (the idea that we need more than just general intelligence for language), it only supports or detracts from it.

>>8233484
you talk as if there is free will and you can choose to deviate

>>8233573
Well assuming there is no free will then this discussion would be meaningless and you would know that in which case you would have no interest in asking it except for to waste my time.

There is a free will to some extent or what you are trying would not be necessary to get me to do what you want me to do.

>>8233667
>implying free will exists
No. Behavior can be explained through environmental and or biological/genetic factors: hence free will not existing.

>>8233667
The discussion would be meaningless if you and I were not participants that are changed by the discussion. All I want you to do now is accept that there is no free will.

>confusing psychology with psychiatry

>>8232392
>antiquated

>>8233705
So Psychiatry is the fake one?

>>8233679
>hence
Wow what a fancy word you knew. You sure convinced me. It's still not even meaningful to discuss "free will" before defining it.
>>8233681
First define free will. Any discussion of it's existence on non-existence is meaningless without a definition.

>>8233762
>define free will
Being able to act outside of the influences of your environment and genetics.

>>8233770
How is that measurable? How do you measure if an action is to be attributed to environment or genetics?

>>8233717
Of course. It is just >>>/x/ shit.

>>8233762
Free will is the phrase given to the idea that you could have done other than you did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7i-D4ddaw
There are also a couple of >hour long talks by Sam Harris on the topic.

>>8233789
>could have done other than you did

That is neither reproducible or falsifiable since any event only occurs once so you can only have responded to it once.

>>8233777
Environment is easy. Just change key parts of the environment and see what happens to behavior. For example, reduce the temperature of a room and see if people put on warmer clothing. This is the more important of the two as environmental factors are responsible for the vast majority of "voluntary" behaviors: its dependent on both antecedent events within one environment and the consequences of a behavior: in other words, not free will.

Genetics is harder, but manipulating genes can create changes in behavior. This one isn't that concerning considering these are mostly "hardwired" behaviors such as reflexive responses, things that certainly aren't done "voluntarily."

>>8233794
>>8233777
Now that I answered that, how do you measure free will?

>>8233819
But people can be aware of the changes you made and then choose to act in a way they normally would not or deliberately act erratically just because they feel you deserve the confusion. Any change in behavior does not prove anything because the situation simply is not the same.

Explain to me how to alter a gene to get a change in the phenotype in an organism more than a few cells old.

>>8233834
An act of defiance is a reaction to something in the environment.

>>8233794
free will is in the arena of philosophy. and anyways, pretty much nothing is strictly falsifiable. if it were that simple we would have a lot fewer problems.

>>8233852
Wait what. You now say that free will is not psychology. Falsifiability is one of the cornerstones of theory of science. If something is not falsifiable it is not scientific. And then you introduce a concept called a "problem" without first defining it. This gets fuzzier and fuzzier.

>>8233794
That applies to everything, hence the problem of induction.

>>8233857
In practice science is like any a gentlemen's club which has a sign on the door "get published or get out".

You should not bother about falsifiability you should bother about how to get published so they don't throw you out of that arbitrary club of theirs.

>>8233857
the problem of free will is a philosophical one. I don't see how psychology has anything to do with it.

>>8233834
Those are both reasons for a behavior occurring though. Either reacting to the change in temperature or deliberating acting in contrast against you as an act of counter control.

I don't have the expertise to describe gene altering in detail, but changes in genes in mice have been able to cause changes in behavior such as causing mice to eat significantly more than average (albeit this example is operant as opposed to reflexive). This demonstrates that genes have an effect on behavior.

>>8233859
No it doesn't because an individual being in an event changes the individual. If you have an experiment with a ball all measurable things the same starting conditions - the same thing should happen. But a human is not a ball. Once you have done the experiment the human is not in the same state and you can't rewind and put it in the same state either. Something simple like physical objects you can isolate and study and reset the conditions over and over but a human you can't do that with.

>>8233866
I disagree. It is not even a problem until you clearly have defined the concept. And even if it were a philosophical problem why even start an argument about it in a thread about psychology?

>>8233867
you didn't consider that your expectation for the mice changed, which altered the unconditioned stimuli you projected to them.

>>8233872
Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate
The problem of free will: do we have that power?
The answer: no, and we don't need psychology to figure that out.

>Why bring up a philosophical problem in a psychology thread
Good question, you should ask the person who brought it up.

>>8233867
Or choose to not act at all or to do something third completely random just to fuck up your experiment for you. And you still claim to be able to attribute that choice to either environment or genes? The argument seems really fuzzy to me.

Yes mice have a shorter lifespan as far as I know so they are easier to experiment on with genetics. You would have to rebirth a whole new human to do the same experiment over again on a human though. It's not really practical (or ethical for that matter).

>>8233880
Yes we have that power. I walk by a food stand and see candy. I can buy candy or I can choose not to. You can attribute that choice to whatever you will but it does not prove anything. It would be convenient if I could tell myself that whatever choice was predetermined because that would remove my sense of responsibility of my actions (if I even felt I had any before, that is).

>>8233881
>just to fuck up your experiment for you
That's not free will then. That's called counter-control and is perfectly explainable for environmental reasons. Maybe you wanted to escape the aversive control the experimenters were placing onto you, maybe frustrating people had reinforcing effects on you in the past, maybe you wanted to prove free will existed by choosing the "random" option.

Its certainly isn't ethical to do such an experiment on a human, but considering that there are a variety of genetic disorders that can effect behavior, it isn't much of an exaggeration to say genes also affect human behavior.

>>8233885
you're describing the ability to do what you want, not the ability to act without the constraint of fate. obviously we can act on our impulses, but our impulses are constrained by fate.

>>8233893
>fate
I don't think any field of psychology accepts this.

>>8234184
hence it's not a psychological question.

>>8233887
Yes it is still free will because I can choose not to. Unless I "snap" mentally or become psychotic as a consequence of any of those experiments and can not control myself any longer my will would still be free. I may have stronger or weaker of an urge to do something in response but my behavior would by no means be predetermined.

>>8233893
Then what is this fate thing we are talking about?

I sure can't stop the sun from shining, so therefore my will is not free? I am not physically strong enough to climb the highest mountain so my will is not free? Or what else would fate be? My sensitivity to fear or shame to repel me from making certain choices?

Jung.

>>8230981
Weird, last time I saw this pyramid sex was on physiological needs.

>>8234359
Your responses aren't pre-determined in the sense that all responses are "pre-destined" to occur, but that doesn't mean free will exists either. The environment you are placed into, your learning history, and your genetics will however determine how you response to a given situation.

>>8234359
No. If the definition of free will were the ability to act on your will, or to do something once you decide to do it, then that would be completely meaningless. Even computers have that ability. I could very well be arguing with a computer who might tell me, "How can you tell me I don't have free will? Are you saying I don't have the ability to compute what I want to? Any time I do something, it's possible for me to have not do so."

The problem there is easier to see. Obviously the computer can act on an impulse, and in a given situation it could hypothetically not act, but the reality is that the computer does not determine its own impulses. Neither do we. We are not immaterial agents who act on our bodies to make decisions.

>>8234370
Fate refers to the cause or determiner of an outcome. It has nothing to do with your ability to DO one thing or another based on your desire to do so. In the computer example above, fate would be the programmer.

>>8233679
Nice meme.

>>8233857
First, falsifiability is only a thing in Popper's ideology, I may be wrong but I think that there are philosophers that disagree with him.

Second, there is a criticisim to falsifiability: it makes predictions that haven't been proved anti-scientific, so it's not the allend to considering something scientific.

>>8233866
>In practice science is like any a gentlemen's club which has a sign on the door "get published or get out".


It's a problem of both, and as always sceince feeds philosophy and vice versa.

>>8233887
Explanations are not put on a vacuum. Just because you can explain it due to enviromental factors, doesn't mean that it's the definitive answer.

I could also answer it using internal factors, why is your explanation more "real" or "accurate" than mine?

Spoiler: it isn't, both are true and both help you understand the situation.

>>8234927
>implying free will isn't the meme here

>>8234898
This. If we assume reality to be monistic then free will cannot fit into the equation. Pluralism is riddled with philosophical problems and is completely outside of science.

>>8232392
Why is that face pulling a German flag along?

Surprised no one has said Carl Rogers yet.

What would a psychology tier list look like?

>top tier
Neurological/Physiological Psychology
Behavioral Psychology
Cognitive Behavioral Psychology

>shit tiered
The rest

Pop psychology is pretty terrible.

>>8230981
Isn't psychology just the art of p-hacking in such a way that you obtain results which make for nice headlines, like "kids who see a picture of santa are less likely to vote trump" or something? What would qualify as 'good' psychology?

>>8237611
Adheres to the scientific method would be a good start. So that eliminates things like Freuds work and Rogers work and most of pop psychology. See >>8236770 for examples of good psychology.

What is the worst form of modern psychology?

>>8239195
social physcology

>>8233242
But brain imaging studies suck.
Have they done something to fix that?
(further reading
>http://www.evullab.org/pdf/correlations-chapter.draft-2015.pdf))

>>8231141
Yes, but he disagrees.

>>8239262
Whats wrong with social psychology?

>>8231317
>b\ Is a great filter to pick out morons

>>8232441
>the theoretic background to CBT is good
Is that Cock and Ball Torture or Chastity Belt Training?

One time, a girl told me she was into CBT, and I thought it was one thing and went out with her, but it turned out to be the other.

>>8241207
Maybe it's Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy

>>8230981
IQ

>>8231392
it's not a paradox at all. What the fuck do you think a paradox is?

>>8239262
European, Latin American or American social psychology?

>>8233705
That's rich coming from a hypnotist piece of shit.

>>8237611
That's just pop psych my dude.

What does /sci/ think about sport psychology? I've just gone and got myself an MSc in it, and feel like it was a waste of money. At the very least, it's far from being a real science, at least in practice. Can answer any questions on it, if anyone is interested.

>>8241850
What paradigm does sports psychology fall under?

>>8242030
It depends on the practitioner. The most dominant model is probably cognitive-behavioural, which influences the psychological skills training approach, but there's also influences from other schools of thought. As a sport psychologist, the specific techniques you use would depend on your own personal philosophy, with respect to counselling.

>>8231947
What does it mean if you don't like you're mom?

>>8233001
This is retarded. Just because someone doesn't use the designated process to figure something out doesn't mean they aren't right.

>>8242039
At least its not using freudian psychology, so you are off to a good start.

>>8243219
Apparently some practitioners do take a psychoanalytic approach, but I don't think it's very common. I don't think Freudian psychology is really practiced in any of the accredited forms, at least here in the UK. The Anna Freud centre operates out of UCL and is fairly influential I guess, but apart from that everyone already acknowledges that it's outdated.

How do I learn about psychology?

>>8243892

Read a book

>>8243894
Which book?

>>8243894

Which book?

>>8243905
>>8243901
Depends on what part of psychology you are interested in. Skinners work is good if you are interested in behavioral psychology, although some of his work requires a basic understanding of behavioral psychology to fully comprehend.

>>8243892
First step is figuring out what field you are interested in.

>>8243901
>>8243905

Behavior Analysis and Learning by Pierce and Cheney is a good place to start. You can find it on libgen, I believe.

>>8231016
ok so why do people become soldiers then? Or pull stupid Jackass-like pranks that get them killed to show off to their buddies? Clearly people are able to put physical needs behind the need for social acceptance or higher values, at least in some cases.

>>8246877
I typed out a serious response but backspaced it. Your logic is terrible, please just leave man.

>>8248227
What is wrong with his logic?

>>8230981
>MFW not freud

What's after now I have accomplished the point where I'm living the dream?

>>8230981
This image is nonsense and the model behind it was likely created by people who faced very little adversity in their life, and scarcely lived outside the norm. You simply cannot, functionally, in practice, arrange it as a dependency chain, no matter how logical it looks on paper.

I've lived most of my life without the base, lacking aspects of the second tier, a complete absence of the third, the fourth registers only in a very limited sense, and the top is more or less covered. Honestly, I've spent more time with the peak than any of the rest.

The model is too abstract and oversimplified to be useful. It does not describe the human machine.

>>8230990
>but it's essential to psychology.
Psychology has some growing up to do then.

>>8232248
>many of the things he said are pretty much proven to be true.

such as?

>>8250940
It is in a bad psychology thread for a reason. No one takes existential psychology seriously.

Not thread related, but I'm going to Grad School in a year and a half for Mental Health Clinical Psychology. Does anybody have their notes/advice that will help prepare me?

>>8253719
Don't be arrogant.

>>8253725
Not trying to be. I want to start learning the skills I need to know how to diagnose (started to in undergrad, but not much) and how to interview/treat indiviudals.

>>8253740
Then don't be afraid to view them like machines, is all I can suggest. Don't forgot the more humanized aspects though.

>>8230993
I use it as a good reference

>>8236770

Gestalt and other psychodynamic procedures any good?

>>8243219

Who the fuck uses traditional Freudian methods today?

>>8251374

Defense mechanisms and the existence of the unconcious.

How oh how is this behaviorism-apologist thread still alive?

Easy, Jung.

>muh collective unconscious

Next.

>>8254215

Idk, I checked in after a week of /v/ and didn't expect it to be alive. Threads in /v/ die in hours, sometimes minutes.

>come to /sci/ to complain about behaviorists
>this thread still up
haah waaw

>hang out with colleague from uni last night because birthday
>she's in a behaviorist-centric program for working with autism
>only four of us are there but I'm the only other from uni
>talking about grad school and behaviorism
>"If someone took this piece of pizza and threw it on the floor, it would never be just because they felt like it. They would have a reason behind it, maybe they were acting out for attention...
>don't remember other reasons given
>silently ree in my head
I'm more of a psychopathology guy myself so I could be wrong but it sounded like such pure BULLSHIT. I wanted to throw it down just to spite her but I could easily see someone doing it purely because they felt like it. Goddamn. Even my undergrad professor thought behaviorism was bullshit.

Freud did nothing wrong

>>8255322
except get everyone hooked on crack

>>8241131

I did a course on it and most of it feels like shit your grandma says she saw on Oprah. There are some good concepts though.

>>8255184
>I wanted to throw it down just to spite her
That would be proving her point.

>Even my undergrad professor thought behaviorism was bullshit.
There are a lot of misconceptions about behaviorism and I've seen even psychology professors make some of these mistakes.

>ITT: Bad psychology

Motivational speakers always leave a bad taste in my mouth and I see people jerking off over them all the time.

>>8256584
Hey, I always get that feeling but I can't quite put my finger on it. As in, I have this gut feeling that they're bullshitting me but I don't have enough knowledge to know where and how exactly.

I think it's this vibe they give off that they've life figured out.

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/762709781396062208

any thing can be trauma.

psychology is not even a bastard science.

>>8230990
>Beyond your comprehension

>>8230981

My favorite way to troll people who like psychology is to ask them questions about sampling. "So... for that study... what was the sample size? What was the age? Where did they come from? What were their religious beliefs?" etc etc.

I'm still waiting for the day that I can move on to statistical confidence. Oh, so much fun there.

>>8255184
Autistic kids usually do things without reason. I knew one autistic who would randomly lick stuff like chairs, asphalt, walls etc. for no reason. Definitely not for attention seeking though.

>>8231004
>>8230990
>maslow meme taught to liberal arts and administration majors
>beyond anyone's comprehension

>psychology
>science
not even once

>>8257694
Psychology is a science, and good fields of psychology do adhere to that. But there is a lot of garbage in psychology as well like Maslow, Rogers and Freudian psychology.

>>8257731
>psychology is a science
not really no

what is trauma? anything I say is trauma, because it's like I feel.

gimme PTSD treatment.

>>8257731
>Psychology is a science
top kek

>>8241284
Don't be ridiculous, he obviously means this trolley problem

>>8230981
Always boggles me the amount of hate I see on psychology here.
Literal circle jerk.

But then I remember the 4chan demographic

>>8230986
>psychology

>>8258487
There's plenty of hate here for things that don't deserve it. But psych deserves it.

How do people get into psychology outside of college or university?
I find it interesting, but when I looked up books on personality types, I had a guy saying schizophrenics have multiple personalities. That is a totally different disorder. Then you have the politicized aspects, where I hear transexuals will no longer be seen as mentally ill, and then you have the people with ties to big pharmacy corporations.

How can anyone work around all this? It's a subject worth exploring, but it's a young science and already a clusterfuck.

>>8258487
>But then I remember the 4chan demographic
Pokemon gym leaders?

>>8258484
My grandfather wasn't even alive when the trolley got invented, ya cunt.

>>8258487
Well open minded people rarely do tend to give undeserved praise to unverified truths.

>>8258484
that's some deep shit right there

>>8259715
one of your n-grandparents was.

>>8257731
there is no consensus in psychology. it's a bunch of different competing schools of thought. each different school emphasizes the phenomena it handles well, and de-emphasizes the ones it handles poorly. it's like pre-darwinian biology or pre-newtonian optics.

>>8260349
she doesn't even look 12 in that pic, at 29 she looks half gorilla or something, gross i bet she has chest hairs.

>>8230981
>not liking maslovs hierarchy of needs
>non-actualizing pleb

>>8260396
It's nonsense.

>>8260926
Just because you lack the intelligence to understand something doesn't mean it's nonsense, anon.

>>8260964
Read:
>>8250940

Having the means to understand it properly allows you to see it's nonsense. You need to get passed the idea that your self experience is representative. You also need to accept you might lack proper understanding of your own nature.

>>8231109
how about cognitive genetics; trying to find a more solid base for certain cognitive functions.

we see a growing overlap with all sorts of other scientific fields

>>8233834
I believe that some chinese/japanese researchers have cloned a dog. this could potentially help with a clearer view of both the environmentally and genetically influences.

>>8230981
Topological psychology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminologie_lacanienne
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Topological-Psychology-Kurt-Lewin/dp/1614277907

>>8254196
desu those are pretty common sense assumptions though

>>8261899
>The Lewin's equation, B = ƒ(P, E), is a psychological equation of behavior developed by Kurt Lewin. It states that behavior is a function of the person in their environment.[17]

lol no shit.

Psychology extends into so many areas and topics.
Even video games and/or marketing relies on it for sales and entertainment value.

Sure you can bash on it for being a poor "science". You cannot deny the usefulness of the field though.

Psych major, here's last semesters courses
>Advanced Cognitive And Behavioral Neuroscience
>Human Cognition
>Sensation and Perception
>Regression Analysis
>Topics in Logic: Mathematics (Upper division elective)

so much pseudoscience AMIRITE?

>>8262089
define "Trauma"

>>8262053
you mean behaviorism, like all the skinner's boxes

>>8233679
It's possible that it doesn't, but free will is a good approximation. If we knew all the values for all the variables, we could calculate. That is impractical so we just go with it.

>>8262137
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define%3A+Trauma

>>8261899
>topological psychology

mein gott. this is some serious bullshitting. I might get this for an algebraic geometer friend as a gag gift.

>>8231109
Tversky & Kahneman

>>8262137
Damage to the psyche's functioning in some way.

>>8231058
What conclusions do you disagree with, or do you simply distrust his methodology?

>>8237619
>So that eliminates things like Freud's work
>ignoring Freud's neuroscientific work completely

Only an autist would not be able to comprehend how Psychology can be an incredibly helpful tool.

>>8262089

I'm not sure whether to be sad or amused. Regression analysis? Am I supposed to be impressed that you can run an ANOVA, something even a lowly bio major learns in their sophomore year? And this is a senior (!) curriculum?

>>8233001

He was too busy helping people with crippling psychological issues to perform rigid experiments

>>8241325

Hypnotism works you retard

>>8242064

Too bad most of his ideas have never been verified, even to this day. I'm not sure how you could even test something absurd like the notion that, deep down, all women want to grow a penis, or the asinine notion that little boys want to fuck their mothers.

>>8264885
You don't know anything about Freud's ideas and are parroting common misconceptions. There's more to it than his models of the psyche, penis envy, castration anxiety, and the oedipus complex.

Stop posting.

>>8264893

I'm just going by what I read in a book I found in the medical library. It's called 'Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry' and it's by an MD called Jeffery A Lieberman, the president of the American Psychiatric Association. You can look it up on Amazon, it has lots of praise from several scientists and science writers.

The guy also talks about Freud's positive contributions but he rightly slams him for his bullshit ideas, his domineering attitude towards his students and contemporaries, his disdain for the scientific method, and for his suppression of Adler.

But no, tell me all about how I am stupid Dr. what is it? You are a doctor right? Oh, you're not? Do you even have an undergrad degree?

>>8264904
>But no, tell me all about how I am stupid Dr. what is it? You are a doctor right? Oh, you're not? Do you even have an undergrad degree?
This is just hiding behind authority, and to me, it immediately marks you as unworthy of time or energy investment.

Put concisely, what you've posted above indicates you don't understand the ideas you're claiming to have a meaningful opinion about. Revisit penis envy and the oedipus complex from another source. (Hint, penis envy is not strictly about the penis strictly anatomically, it's about the broader phallus, a power symbol.)

>>8264910
>Revisit penis envy and the oedipus complex from another source. (Hint, penis envy is not strictly about the penis strictly anatomically, it's about the broader phallus, a power symbol.)

I get that, and what I also get is that these ideas are not testable, and therefore not science.

>>8264917
Who even cares.

I've known women who display and even admit to all the aspects of penis envy.

>>8264910

Why the fuck is it that both Freud fans and Marx fans hide behind this 'b-but you don't REALLY get it' bullshit when confronted with the fact that the theories are stupid? Marx didn't understand supply-demand curves and created a convoluted, faulty philosophy instead. His retarded acolytes consistently got in the way of progress in economics. Similarly, Freud didn't understand (or I guess was too much of an ass to bother with) the value of the scientific method and came up with a bunch of hypotheses, many of which are stupid and most of which can't be verified.

>>8264923
Yeah, and I've known women who believe that something in their dreams turned out to have prophetic significance.

I guess Jung was right about synchronicity!

That's what you sound like right now. That's you.

>>8264931
That comparison is stupid enough to warrant no further interaction. Goodbye.

>>8264935

From the perspective of evidence-based medicine, Freud's ideas and Jung's ideas are equally useful. There has been no consistent findings suggesting that classical Freudian psychoanalysis has any therapeutic value compared to other forms of psychiatry. And if you want to just continue living in a bubble where everyone who is critical of unfalsifiable, unscientific theories with no proven applications is just an idiot who doesn't "get it", then you can go right ahead. But if that's how you think, then I don't think you belong in /sci/, I think you belong in a garbage can.

>>8264939
I preferred conversing with you in the nofap thread.

You have a seriously compromised ability to understand context. Stop trying to play scientist and think about what someone actually means when they say something, rather than inanely reframing it to be about something else entirely. I'm not talking about "therapeutic value", nor was I prior.

>>8264950
Fine fine. Let me start over. Here's what I think about Freud, and what I think a lot of reasonable people would agree with:

pros:
>subconscious is a real thing
>the concept of talking about problems to understand and change maladaptive behaviors seems good
>I guess I can admit that psychiatry is one of those things that is both and art and a science
>inspired Jung, who I always thought was pretty cool in a weird, hippie/scifi way

cons:
>dogmatic approach towards followers
>Needlessly hostile towards contemporaries notably more empiricist thinkers like Adler
>clearly had an ego problem (I mean, if you're gonna skewer me for being inane and confrontational, you should at least admit that Freud was kind of an ass too)

verdict: Not a scientist, definitely a smart guy who hit on a lot of truths in a way many previous philosophers did, but eschewing empiricism and evidence-based practice to the degree that he did, in his time, is frankly asinine.

>>8264950
I find it amusing that I (A) never posted in the nofap thread (B) cannot guess whether you would be pro- or anti- no fap (C) can't say which one I would support, given the dearth of case control studies on nofap.

>>8230981
>ITT: Bad psychology
>Hard mode: No Chromsky.
>Very Hard Mode: No Freud.

That should present, no challange.

COME AT ME BRO!

Tarot Major Arcana = Paths between sephirots.

Why isn't "Health/Wellness" on the chart? Dumb

>>8230981
You can't have friends or feel accomplished if you're cold, hungry or thirsty?

>>8265892
That's a physiological need. But arguably it's a bit more abstract and less necessary than the ones on the chart.

>>8250437
> People might lose their life in due time if they do the things I mentioned
> People who do that also have friends
> People who might lose their life in due time will not try to make or keep friends
> ergo modus tollens
Different anon, but this is how I would describe the logic here. No one does those things with the exception or even goal to die.
inb4 suicide bombers, we are considering cases where people do not put some ideology above the worth of a human life, and even then you can assume they are not going to suicide hungrily.