[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.55 MB, 1324x1101, 1300339204116.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2873150 No.2873150 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think is necessary for psychology to evolve into a real field of science instead of the incomplete, inaccurate monstrosity it is now?
If you were in charge of tending to the psychological needs of the population of the world in general and you had unlimited funds, how would you improve the field?
Which studies would you perform? Would you monitor psychologists?
How can you better psychology?

>> No.2873168

>>2873150
Artificial Intelligence.
The basic problem of psychology is that their experiments suck, because 1. they have no more accurate means to observe the human mind rather than (a) asking the person or (b) measuring some electricity they cannot accurately interpret and 2. they have no means to restore a certain state of mind to test it again and 3. they have no means to examine parts of the mind exclusively.

>> No.2873185

>>2873168
By artificial intelligence, you mean have AI. interpret human testing or having artificial intelligence recreate human traits in order to study them?

>> No.2873210

reichian revival

/thread

>> No.2873217

1. Engineer a few control specimen brains. Make them as average as possible.

2. Test them under several different stimuli. Observe how they respond.

3. ????

4. Profit, you can now pay back the courts for unethical practice.

>> No.2873270

OP's picture is good. Problem is that most people have more red goats than green goats.

Psychology? The need to accept that there are no hard and fast rules, only statistical trends. Use statistics to test hypotheses. Ask questions that aren't really about the thing you're measuring to try to avoid peoples' inclination to avoid answering candidly (or troll). How-you-react-to-the-test-is-part-of-the-test kind of stuff.

Unfortunately, the thing is always somewhat futile because, despite the efforts of various belief systems and cultures, we have all been shaped differently by different experiences and there aren't many hard-and-fast rules you can apply to humans, and to really understand people you need to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some are kind, some are selfish, some are friendly, some are assholes, some are cripplingly insecure, some are over-confident, some worry about little details, some genuinely don't care, some think constantly about sex, others just think about it a lot. The only broad strokes you can make are the needs to keep humans alive and as sane as the next guy; needs to eat, drink, sleep, shit, avoid extreme physical trauma and not be too goddamn old.

Oh, and it would be good if chip-on-shoulder non-scientist psychologists stopped making up new mental disorders (read: emotional crutches) and then going on TV and telling impressionable people who want to explain their failures about their ideas.

>> No.2873388

>OP's pic
I really can't stand this sort of argument. For an illustration that praises objectivity over subjectivity, it certainly poses a lot of subjective assertions as fact. Espousing certain ideologies as "mature" ways of thinking while condemning others as "immature" is by its own argument an immature position to take.

For anyone claiming to support objective fact over subjective judgment, maturity should only be used as a term describing physical development.

>> No.2873781

Personally, I find /sci/'s position on psychology not being a hard science incredibly aggravating, because it shows their obvious ignorance about it.

>> No.2874520

You guys sure have a lot of words here for a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

Lots of people like to point to physics as being the purest science (unless youre an XKCD tard) so let's look at it from that perspective.

Do atoms have ambitions? Does a force want to get laid and post dumb memes on 4chan? When has a fission reaction written a song?

There's some pretty goddamn fundamental differences in what you're trying to study and, accordingly, your methods have to be different.

Tl;dr fuck off with this shit already

>> No.2874526

>>2873781


>doesnt know what hard science is

>> No.2874533

Amazing how much self-righteousness and hypocrisy the artist managed to cram into one picture.

>> No.2874534

>>2874526

There's no such thing. Tell me more about strings and aether and keep pretending we're close to a universal theory.

>> No.2874546

>>2874533
self righteousness? where?

>> No.2874548

>>2874526

If only it was as easy to describe people/personalities and problems through mathematics eh?

I understand why people say the social sciences aren't "real" sciences, but that is a really old fashioned purist cunt view. It is science, just a completely different type of science, and arguably far more relevant to human progress.

>> No.2874569

Psychology isn't a "real science" because "real science" is just an engine for using stupid people to do grunt work. "JUST LOOKIT AND SEE" (empiricism) doesn't work for psychology or any other so we have to bring in the big guns and set the field for intelligent debate. Then we can develop the most accurate deductive reasoning based on the little information that we have. Any field or issue can be resolved this way, it just ends up looking something like philosophy which not everyone has the intelligence to understand.

I think most people get confused by fields like psychology because A) You have geniuses in the field disagreeing with each other B) You have geniuses in the field failing to avoid the more difficult pitfalls of reason in ways that even average people can be skeptical of, like applying the same principal to a situation where it might no longer apply.

>> No.2874570

>>2874546
It's self-righteous to categorize other people's behavior as either immature or mature under the pretense of objectivity.

>> No.2874619

>>2874570
Are the some of the categories and behaviours mismatching? How is it not objective if the artist believes the art has filled the intended purpose?

>> No.2874703

>>2874619
>Are the some of the categories and behaviours mismatching?
What do you mean? None of the behaviors are *objectively* mature or immature. It's all based on the artist's subjective point of view. On top of that, some are vague to the point of absolute meaninglessness, like "Tell" and "Died - Won Some Battles" on the immature side, or "Listen" and "Understand" on the other.

>How is it not objective if the artist believes the art has filled the intended purpose?
I was referring to the content of the image as a subjective assessment, not to whether or not it succeeds at getting the artist's message across.