[ 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: 101 KB, 800x600, 800px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678125 No.4678125 [Reply] [Original]

what does /sci/ think of psychology?

>> No.4678129

Pseudo-science, on par with economics and homeopathy.

>> No.4678135

I wouldn't study it because it just seems 'too fuzzy' to me, if that makes sense. I won't say it isn't a hard science, because what does that even mean, but it relies too much on correlative stats and flawed sampling methods.

I have a friend who is doing his PhD. in psych. and he seems to really like it. I feel like it is pretty limiting though, he said only like 75% of people get intern positions (which is a program requirement!). So imagine the job potential...

But if you love it, do it.

>> No.4678141 [DELETED] 
File: 230 KB, 418x350, 75664552345345.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678141

>psychology
>hard science

lol, i joke
but seriously its probably ok, although i doubt its as difficult as some of the harder sciences

>> No.4678145

>>4678141
Do you happen to know any psychologist?

>> No.4678146

>>4678129
I wouldn't consider it a pseudo-science... it is just difficult to grasp. How do you objectively study the human mind without bringing inherent bias into everything?

I feel like psychology is a weak field, but I can't offer any ways they could improve. That said, if people simply refused to study human thought processes because they thought it was a "pseudoscience" that would be pretty retarded.

I mean wanting to understand the human mind is a commendable thing, the field just needs time to mature.

>> No.4678152 [DELETED] 

>>4678145
yeh, my housemate does it

>> No.4678155

>>4678141
>difficult

This is how you measure the worth of an entire field? By how, "difficult" the undergraduate-level courses are?

lol please.

>> No.4678160

>>4678141
>implying zoology is difficult

>> No.4678167 [DELETED] 

>>4678160
i bet its harder than psychology

>>4678155
it just doesnt seem as valuable to me as maths, physics, biology or chemistry.
when i picture a psychologist, all i see is
>uhuh
>uhuh
>hmmm, yes
>and how does that make you feel?
>uhuh
>uhuh
>...right
>...can i have some money now?

>> No.4678186

>>4678146
>I wouldn't consider it a pseudo-science...

you forgot the word "even". Also I agree, I was a little too rash, putting psychology and homeopathy on the same tier really disgraces the science of homeopathy.

Hm, I guess we could put psychology into the arts category.

>> No.4678264

No numbers. Doesn't mean anything.

>> No.4678270

>>4678186
I am assuming you are just pretending to be stupid, unlike homoeopathy psychology is at least based on real science.

>> No.4678284

What would studying the subconciousness and intuition and such be?

Our reason of being alive?

>> No.4678291

Modern psychology is purely based on empirical data it's science just as any, Im not sure how it can be a pseudoscience.

Jungian shit on the other hand is just pure philosophy.

>> No.4678294
File: 455 KB, 174x120, 1336888888200.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678294

>Zoology
>Science

>> No.4678346

how'd they come up with homosexuality not being a disease?

>> No.4678353
File: 107 KB, 265x200, 1334805574851.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678353

>>4678346

>Be 2012
>Still believing homosexuality is a disease

>> No.4678381

it's not a 100% science because it can't deal with numbers/equation and its experiment aren't always reliables and repeatables. it has "science fashion" when it comes to statistics, medicine and chemical treatment.
you can't into science "dream interpretation" or other psychology theories [with the current technology]...but that doesn't mean they don't work or they are useless.
you can't formalize a person's consciousness with math/laws/numbers, but you can still try to interpret it...and it is important to.

>> No.4678397

I'm doing my MSc. in experimental psychology. I get the feeling many people still think psychology is just about mental disorders, therapy, and other such things. It's also about attention, language, learning, memory, cognitive control, motivation, etc... To research these, we use tightly controlled paradigms like reaction time experiments, neuroscientific methods like MRI, eeg, DTI, computational methods (neural networks, data-simulation).
Sure, it's probably not an exact science, but it's definitely not rubbish either.

>>4678381
>>4678167
When I read posts like this, I realize how the media and idiot clinical psychs have fucked up the reputation of the entire field. Or maybe you're just really ignorant.

>> No.4678400

>>4678346
How is "Staring at glowing rectangles for hours on end" not a disease?

>> No.4678403

>>4678264
Only if you're an idiot.

There's a reason you're going to be sucking business cock for the rest of your life, doing the research and experiments they demand of you.

It's because they know how to read trends, and you're convinced that "trends don't mean anything". And then you smile and thank them as they cum on your face.

But that's okay. You had a 4.0 GPA throughout all of college. How could you POSSIBLY be wrong?

>> No.4678412

>>4678397
It's not the media. You guys do enough to embarrass yourselves all on your own. Take a look at the current literature in APA affiliated journals.

It is so rubbish it hurts, and I think you may be the ignorant player here. If you knew what it takes to review actual scientific literature, you would know why everyone thinks the way they do about psychology.

>> No.4678414

/sci/ is defiant towards psychology because its apparent lack of scientific rigor in their studies... but if you want to have a discussion about a very serious psychological experiment tested with hard evidence, you're welcome. See: Milgram, Rosenhan, etc.

>> No.4678415
File: 14 KB, 532x434, Imagsasde1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4678415

>> No.4679815

>>4678346
It happens often enough to be considered a variation. It doesn't impede on one's health if you take out the Darwinian premise that we have to reproduce.

>> No.4679821

>>4678414

But that's usually the case with psychology studies. It's just tremendously more difficult to form control groups in psychology.

>> No.4679853
File: 24 KB, 952x645, 1336925404313.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4679853

>>4678415

>> No.4679903

>what does /sci/ think of psychology?

The field as a whole is legit, obviously. But it has some problems with letting go of bad or untested ideas, like the one in ur picture. The whole psycho-dynamic field is pseudoscience.
This is also a problem for psychiatry, and it seems to be a bigger problem for that.

>> No.4679905

>>4678141
>but seriously its probably ok, although i doubt its as difficult as some of the harder sciences


Depends what u mean. The field is much harder than harder sciences, but the education is easier than the hard science educations. This is a rather paradoxical situation.

>> No.4679918

That feel when 90% of /sci/ is not being fulfilled on even a physiological level.

>> No.4680029

>>4679815
is this really how they did it?