Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 214 KB, 600x600, yep.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10861942 No.10861942 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why do people get so butthurt when I call psychology pseudoscience? It literally is.

>> No.10861945

>>10861942
Nobody cares
Fuck off to your other blog

>> No.10861954

>>10861945
Don't have one, this is it

>> No.10861975

>>10861942
>calls psychology pseudoscience
>without explaining how
your hypocrisy is showing

>> No.10861985

>>10861942
Because using the word "pseudosciece" is the essence of being an edgy pseud. Psychology may have some problems, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to understand the mind. Let's clean it up.

>> No.10862031
File: 205 KB, 900x630, 51068f24a5d402b85f5d2f3d0f7f1a46.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10862031

>>10861942
Bro, there is a scientific approach to psychology. We extract the objective commonalities across as many subjective experiences as we can. Much of psychology is based on that.

However something as entropic as the human experience is difficult to quantify. Perhaps impossible. Science has made zero ground in understanding the development of consciousness for example. It's not a pseudoscience it's just human irrationality(is it even irrationality?) is so pervasive that any scientific approach will fail.

There is a theory that points out that discarding everything that is NOT a commonality is where science fails. So I pose a question to you, how can you control for those experiences that are not commonalities without disrupting the study or the subject? I'll wait.

>> No.10862033

>>10861942
IQ shitters get mad because IQ is pseudoscience

>> No.10862039

>>10862033
Nigger with an IQ of 70 pissed because the military did extensive control studies on IQ proving anyone with IQ less than 80 was counter productive to any tasked they were assigned. (The military WANTED Stupid people for cannon fodder)

Which translates to why they're an>>10862033
entire group of din'dos and gimmedats.

>> No.10862040

>>10861942
psychology is a product of capitalism, it's only purpose is to make money.

>> No.10862043

>>10862039
Makes sense. The American cops also take IQ tests to make sure you don't have a high IQ. American cops aren't meant to have a high IQ.

>> No.10862177

>>10862043
lol you got a source for that knee-slapper?

>> No.10862194

>>10862177
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630

>> No.10862220

>>10862194
>https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630
very nice. That website reminded me of this one: https://isgp-studies.com/

>> No.10862228

>>10862220
I'm not gonna bother posting another source because you clearly don't want to be convinced. You must have an agenda of being rekt by low iq law enforcement.

>> No.10862238

>>10862228
I'm not actually being facetious and I totally believe you. Also my website is great, wtf, man

>> No.10862246

psychology is the study of the mind. The mind is retarded, therefore fuck psychology.

>> No.10862267

psychology is a soft science,
but not pseudoscience.
There is a big difference.

>> No.10862299

>>10861985
>the mind
First, we have to understand the soul, then you can worry about something as pseudo as the mind.

>consciousness
The development of a scientific framework for free will is essential in understanding consciousness.

>> No.10862304

>>10862267
It is a soft pseudoscience because it relies on qualitative rather than quantitative models making it soft and it skips steps of the scientific method making it pseudo.

>> No.10862423

>>10861942
Because some people want to try to understand others.

>> No.10862437

>>10862304
>muh scientific method
not math or science please fuck off back to your philosophy classes.

>> No.10862503

>>10862423
Unless we invent some kind of experience machine that allows one to download all of someone's memories and feelings, will we ever truly understand others?

>> No.10862566

>>10862437
It appears you meant to reply to OP, I agree delet thread, OP.

>> No.10862595

>>10861942
If psychology is a pseudoscience then IQ is also a pseudoscience

>> No.10862598

>>10862595
IQ is the least pseudosciencey part of psychology and sociology, which is still not saying much

>> No.10862604
File: 31 KB, 216x423, psychology - Erik_Erikson_Photo2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10862604

>>10861942
It is a science. However, the main problem is that most of the studies in that field have nothing to do with science. There's only something like 0.1% of studies in psychology that are science. Most people don't even know what psychology is apart from the dictionary definition.

>> No.10862607

>>10862595
>>10862598
IQ has nothing to do with psychology though.

>> No.10862612

>>10862607
The concept of IQ was created by psychologists.

>> No.10862675

>>10862607
Other than being one of the most widely known psychometrics, right.

>> No.10862704

>>10861975
/thread
OP is a raging autist

>> No.10863160

>>10861975
Popper’s demarcation theory, lad.

>> No.10863285

Because they're pseudoscientists

>> No.10863300

>>10863160
What's the tldr for it anon?

>> No.10863311

>all these people who dont know about the replication crisis

not science or math

>> No.10863351

>>10862675
>>10862612
Psychology is a science. Intelligence can't be quantified. Taking the test several times in a row will result in different results. Having other people take the test will result in different results. There's no repeatable results concerning IQ and as such can not be added to science data other than being completely incorrect. That means all models involving IQ are completely incorrect.

>> No.10863359

>>10863351
Psychology is the study of the mind. The mind is pseudo.

Mind is never peaceful; no-mind is peace. Mind itself can never be peaceful, silent. The very nature of the mind is to be tense, to be in confusion. Mind can never be clear, it cannot have clarity, because mind is by nature confusion, cloudiness

Psychology is the study of pseudo. It's a
pseudoscience.

>> No.10863518

>>10863359
See >>10862604

>> No.10863844

>>10861942
Putting things about other people out of own sick mind is called psychology.

Nobody ever said it's science. It's more like... Trash talk.

Psychologist is paid trash talker.

>> No.10863891

>>10863359
I agree with your conclusion, but you sound like you're 1. underage and 2. have read one shitty translation of some esoteric text and now think you know everything there is to know about "the mind".

>> No.10863911

>>10863891
con cis ou nes

>> No.10863922

>>10861975
Psychology is definitely not science. It is not repeatable or predictable in the same way that actual science is.

>> No.10863964

>>10861942
Trying to analyze and categorize a phenomenon that exists in the natural world?
It's science, dude. It's about as effective as catching clouds with your bare hands, but it's still *technically* a science.

>> No.10864351

>>10862267
>soft science
soft science is a meaningless term. Either something is science or it isn't.

>> No.10864358
File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10864358

>>10864351
farthest to the right, most hard science
farthest to the left, most soft science

>> No.10864436

I'm a doctoral student in clinical psych (final year) with 2 masters degrees. If anyone has questions, I'll lurk this thread for a bit. The whole "is psych a science" is retarded. Psychology is biology applied to the human brain. We tend to get caught up in human thought, emotion, and behavior because we're a social animal and those internal and external experiences shape our social world. The "psych can't be quantitative" is shit, too. Much of neuropsych is pretty objective, but outside of this, psych relies on statistics, which people dismiss because they are largely based on probabilities (since the human experience is so complex). Yes, Psych has qualitative portions, too, but again, that's due to our social nature as humans.

Anyways. AMA, but try not to make your questions too big, I don't want to write an essay for each answer.

>> No.10864442

>>10864436
Do you like school or are you a masochist?

>> No.10864451

>>10864442
Both? I really enjoy learning, but I also find it rewarding to help others.

>> No.10864777

>>10864436
Look, Im not an expert, I would classify neuroscience as a truly scientific endeavor for trying to figure out the structure/ function of the brain.

Psychology is not at a scientific stage right now. There is nothing wrong with this, astrology and alchemy served as precursors to to the genuinely scientific fields of astronomy and chemistry respectively. Its just not there.

The main issue is that experiments are not reproducible: a psychological experiment depends on so many variables depending on how exactly the experiment is set up, the past history of the subjects, that makes replicating results is a crapshoot. This lack of control over variables in your experiments, plagues the social sciences (economics, sociology having it even worse), which limits the reproducibility of these experiments. This seems to be very common when studying complicated systems with many complex, correlated variables (in this case brains).

Just because you use confidence levels like a big boy doesn't make the experiments meaningful: the most experiments can say is that for a small group of people, people (who often self-select, by volunteering) behave in X way to Y stimulus, to whatever confidence level. Tough to infer very much

I have nothing but respect for the attempt though: the human brain is the most complicated object in the universe that we know of. I dont expect it to be really resolved in my lifetime

>> No.10864814

>>10864777
I'm about to head to bed, but I'll respond a bit. First of all, I appreciate that you understand that psychology is doing the best it can with what it has. The truth is, we have to use "big boy" statistics because we don't have variables in the equation. I agree that psychology is a precursor to a better science, it's only been around as a field for about 150 years. I would argue that psych is a legit science (fine, social science) since we use the scientific method to the best of our abilities with the information that we have, but hard sciences have had a lot longer to develop and refine. Just like poker, though, you can make an educated guess based on what information you do have in order to make educated decisions. For example, we know that punishment has better short-term outcomes for behavior modification, but reward has longer lasting effects (with less trauma and maladaptive learning schemas). Does this mean that some kids can't be yelled at for running into traffic? Maybe? Maybe not. but overall, we have decent understanding based on what limited knowledge we have. The reason replication is difficult is because we are studying the patterns of unpredictable behavior, not interactions between elements or movements that follow defined laws.

Anyways, that was way too many words to express my half-baked thoughts. I think the only way we could become as precise as other hard sciences would be to have a methodology to map each individual neuron in the brain and be able to have perfect laboratory conditions, but until then, I like to think that we are working hard. I think clinical psychology is a bit closer to the medical sciences than harder sciences. I used to work with physicians and a lot of the discussions were "it's probably X, let's try Y treatment and if that doesn't work, Z treatment or refer out".

>> No.10864830

>>10862299
Subtle. Nice job.

>> No.10864855

>>10863359
This is grand. This is pseudo. I aspire to have a mind. I aspire to be pseudo.

>> No.10864918

>>10863891
OSHO hates esoteric shit. He would shoot carl jung in the assshole

>> No.10864921

Soft science /=/ Pseudoscience

>> No.10865324

because they think not being a science renders it untrue so they have to have science in their name as a sign of validation because they don't understand science
like this guy >>10861985
or this guy who seems to think pseudoscience means false knowledge >>10862031

>>10864351
>>10864358
isn't soft science an euphemism?
as in, if it can't be reproduced in a vacuum, then it isn't science because that's pretty much what makes science science?
>>10863922
^
>>10863311
^
i'm asking because i may not know what science actually is, but if it is something which doesn't rely strictly on the scientific method and doesn't necessarly mean having to be replicated and predicted then i'll disregard everything labeled science as bullshit and only trust my eyes, ears and skin

>> No.10865384

>>10862304
>It is a soft pseudoscience because it relies on qualitative rather than quantitative models
I wish this was true, but sadly it's the opposite that dominates contemporary psychology.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action