Hey /sci/, what's wrong with Psychology, and what needs to be fixed?

File: 21 KB, 290x251, Psychology.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:01:09 2014 No.6648051 [DELETED]

Hey /sci/, what's wrong with Psychology, and what needs to be fixed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:08:43 2014 No.6648057 Poor reproducibility of results. There's no obvious solution, but tackling the negative results stigma might be one way forward

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:13:37 2014 No.6648060

Less opinion, more results. We need to see the same level of predictability that math, physics, chemistry, and astronomy produces. I'm not as bad as some of the anti-psych people out there, but being forced into therapy as a kid was a pretty terrible experience that left me with a sour opinion of psychology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:14:52 2014 No.6648062 >>6648051 It will fix itself. All applied sciences either become more scientific or die. Don't worry about it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:20:56 2014 No.6648067

>>6648051
Its a shitty religion with superstitious roots that can't be fixed any more than alchemy or Scientology, it needs to be discarded from scientific favor in lieu of neuroscience and behavioral game theory because there is little empiricism to explain things like MBTI personality modeling or most of the DSM.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:22:15 2014 No.6648072 >>6648067 Is behavioral game theory related to behavioral economics?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:29:33 2014 No.6648079 >>6648072 Not really, economics is barely less of a pseudoscience than psychology.

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:32:39 2014 No.6648084

>>6648060

But it does provide the same level of predictability. By observing behaviour/mental state you can easily predict the possible actions subject will commit in near future.

For example, someone who is egoistic, sociopathic and has anger management problems will probably commit an act of violence towards someone in the near future.

It's results, isn't it? How is it an opinion ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:38:29 2014 No.6648089 It suffers from Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 13:45:31 2014 No.6648095 >>6648051 If /sci/ knew that for sure it would have been fixed already

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 14:02:14 2014 No.6648124

>>6648051

On a ground level, like the level of clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and therapists, there's a wasteland of actual fucking intuition.

From my experience, it's like dealing with algorithmic robots who can't adapt treatment on an individual level. If you want anything effective for yourself, you have to direct them and point out shit.

Also a lack of communication skills (psychiatrists) in regards to medication. Been in places with veterans prescribed shit for bipolar and schizophrenia and shit and half of them don't know absolutely simple shit about their meds that could be explained easy as fuck with a forceful paragraph or two. It's just fucking weird to see "professionals" lack that sort of empathy or understanding. And then the vets who complain about said meds either get mad or stop taking them because a fucking doc couldn't take a godamn minute getting their attention.

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 15:03:55 2014 No.6648217

psychology is good, it helps in a lot of ways because the point of view, to understand the way people behave.
psychiatry is bad, because it will just numb certain part of the brain and call it a solution for the problem.
Psychology is to find the cause and then try to change it in order to heal the emotion aspect of the damage on the brain, psychiatry just numb the brain, makes money of the drugs and calls it a solution.
Psychology tries to understand society and will try to make it better (best out of wurst scenario), psychiatry pushes forward problems by numbing in and hopes to find an other way to still make money out of that problem later on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 15:05:55 2014 No.6648222 >>6648051 I don't know. I will have to think about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 16 15:07:35 2014 No.6648224 >Also a lack of communication skills (psychiatrists) in regards to medication that's not entirely true. medication is named in a Greek fashion, they all have there purpose written within the name. But moneymaking is the key here.

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 15:21:30 2014 No.6648256

Psychology is massively broad. Loads of people call themselves psychologists, ranging from bullshit freudian therapists to cognitive neuroscientists.

For what is known as experimental psychology, the big dilemma is applying proper theories to behavioral/neuroscientific results.

For the more social science psychology the solution lies in data that allows theories to be disproven. The stuff the psychometric center in Cambridge do for example is a step forward.

I know little about therapeutic psychology but ive heard of a severe lack in proper clinical trials.

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 15:22:56 2014 No.6648260

>>6648224

No I mean simple shit like

"Look. This shit isn't a magic bullet. It might take a few weeks to kick in. Be patient. If the side effects become worse than any sort of positive change, please come back for a visit and we'll try something else. In relation to your condition, I hope it'll relieve such and such symptoms."

Holy shit that would take care of half the complaints from the jarheads I've been with. Just literally a few fucking simple sentences.

Maybe it's just the Veteran's Administration.

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 20:05:33 2014 No.6648872

> No I mean simple shit like

that would be a psychiatry, giving something to numb your senses.
the only diffense between that and illigal drugs is the one who sells it, and never works, it just put the problem away for a while and is waiting to come back again. No-one is ever, nor will there ever be one patient cured from those treatments.

. Wed Jul 16 20:34:16 2014 No.6648951

from a research perspective, we are still far away from being able to predictably quantify behavior and cognition. Neuroscience is getting close, but the technology is still not there.

In the applied field, there is too much profit motif in the way. The pharmaceutical industry has its claws in clinicians in a similar way it does with standard medicine. 95% of cases can be attended to using simple applied behavioral theory, but that doesn't keep patients coming back. When you medicate you create a dependency, which means you get repeat customers.

Most of all, the problem is the demographic of people becoming 'psychologists'. Most of these people are the artsy-yuppie types, with pre-established schema in regards to the concept of psychology. The different 'camps' all lobby for position and followers instead of working together towards true empiricism

>>	. Wed Jul 16 20:36:23 2014 No.6648958 >>6648872 This. Only in extreme cases is medication truly required. Severe hypo-mania, Bi-polar disorder, Schizophrenia and rare instances of depression do in fact require medication, but always as a supplement to therapy.

Anonymous Wed Jul 16 20:51:12 2014 No.6648997

> Only in extreme cases is medication truly required. Severe hypo-mania, Bi-polar disorder, Schizophrenia and rare instances of depression do in fact require medication, but always as a supplement to therapy.

Goal can be reached without the supplement. Just takes empathy, patience and will power.

Anonymous Thu Jul 17 00:32:58 2014 No.6649460

>>6648084
Sure you can claim to "easily predict" that, but it usually happens in retrospect by applying the current hip semantics (sociopathic is not in favor any longer, somebody hasn't read the new DSM and doesn't actually know what they are talking about), but it does not act as pragmatically as a physics problem where you can actually measure empirically whether or not your prediction was within so many metric units of a particular tolerance of error, since "violence toward someone" is extremely vague and most violence is committed by people who don't necessarily match your profile.

Anonymous Thu Jul 17 02:29:04 2014 No.6649657

>>6648997
>>6648958

You people are retarded.

"Oh yeah people with mental ailments will always be in environments conducive to mental restoration."

Or they can take medicine to help transition to better places and better behaviors so they can eventually just live. Like do you even understand that your idiotic prescription of "patience and will" is anathema to a class of people with reduced executive functioning?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 01:37:13 2014 No.6651437 The problem with psychology is the people it studies. There's a ton of variation which kinda limits empirical studies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:22:50 2014 No.6651466 >>6651437 Isn't that the whole premise of psychology as a science, that it that claims the ability to study people and make clear empirical studies and conclusions with reproducible effects and causes?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:29:36 2014 No.6651476 >>6651466 I'unno, it's just the root problem I'm pretty sure.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:31:33 2014 No.6651477

>>6648260
>"Look. This shit isn't a magic bullet. It might take a few weeks to kick in. Be patient. If the side effects become worse than any sort of positive change, please come back for a visit and we'll try something else. In relation to your condition, I hope it'll relieve such and such symptoms."
This reads exactly the opposite they did to a friend of mine.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:35:19 2014 No.6651484

>>6651466

>implying neg/pos feedback doesn't work
>implying anonymity does not change behavior
>implying voting publicly will produce the same results as voting blind
>implying a command made will have the same effect as a request made

You don't know what you're talking about. Psychology has recognized trends in human behavior that have been implemented in schooling, seduction, warfare, business, politics, and most other applicable arenas.

>expecting people to be as variable as atoms
>expecting this to be a lab science which would be unethical as fuck
>not even reading studies on the subject before making a conclusion on it

There are a lot of bullshitters and pseudoscientists that fly the psych flag, but to write off the entire field is damnably ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:37:03 2014 No.6651486 >>6651476 So the root of the problem is that it can't be a science and is basically a semantic religion that works enough of the time that some people can claim to make patterns out of the random noise?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:39:36 2014 No.6651492 >>6648051 In my opinion, the main issue with psychology is that it tries to be like a real science, but it's too subjective and is easily flawed. By the very nature of what it is studying, it can't ever produce results as exact as a big kid science.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:45:04 2014 No.6651498

>>6651484
>Psychology has recognized trends in human behavior that have been implemented in schooling, seduction, warfare, business, politics, and most other applicable arenas.

So has scientology and islam, that doesn't make them an empirical science, it just means people aren't good are recognizing manipulation and people generally don't understand empirical measurement and physical metrics because none of what you said occurs with the same measurable consistency as physics or chemistry problems and isn't empirical or scientific.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:52:14 2014 No.6651510

>>6651486
Well the form of psychology that would produce empirical evidence is kind of inhumane, illegal and frowned upon. As is it still produces evidence and scientific data that is usable but it doesn't work like physics, humans are far too random of a factor for it to work that way.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 02:57:08 2014 No.6651517

This thread is proof that when people think psychology they are actually talking about abnormal psychology and abnormal psychology is shit.
Psychology in terms of getting people to buy stuff and whatnot isn't absolute like astronomy etc but its still accurate.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:02:36 2014 No.6651524

>>6651510
No, you just don't understand what empirical means, neuroscience has produced plenty of empirical data about the human brain, perception, and behavior that isn't inhumane, illegal, or frowned upon, if anything psychology with its Stanford Experiments, lobotomies (these days its usually chemical lobotomies), hypnosis and false memories, and torturing the Unibomber behaves inhumane, illegal, and doesn't even create reproducible empirical data with metrics that can be analyses to see if they remain in a specific tolerance of error from predictions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:07:21 2014 No.6651526 >>6648051 >“False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant” >http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/11/1359.full.pdf

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:13:15 2014 No.6651527

>>6651517
Psychology is accurate in a culture that is conditioned through constant deception and manipulation to accept it as accurate by overloading the sequential cortical processing system of the brains with deceptive information that will ultimately limit the brains perspective and ability to reason outside of whatever artificial limits are ubiquitously repeated in the culture or collection of brains, however, when psychologists try to apply the same concepts to people who aren't westernized and exposed to the limiting contributions of the psyche religion their entire life, they don't get the results the psychologists normally expect, not to mention they admit to suffer highly from expectation effects, placebos, false positive and any number of reasonings that can make them get almost any result out of any situation they want and call it valid by their low nonempirical standards.

It isn't like astronomy at all, it is more like astrology or scientology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:31:22 2014 No.6651543 File: 14 KB, 222x204, 1404758141170.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >All these butthurt babies afraid of the shrink Scared I'm gonna declare you insane?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:34:35 2014 No.6651548 >>6651543 No, just concerned about how you people like to drug up children and perform chemical lobotomies on people who resist your deceptive selfish exploitation of society and ubiquitous lies and thievery.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:38:16 2014 No.6651551 >>6651548 Psychology =/= Psychiatry

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:43:18 2014 No.6651554

>>6651551
If that is what you need to tell yourself to sleep and night, then by all means keep telling yourself that, buddy, but in reality its like picking hairs between Episcopalians and Catholics when they are both executing the same flawed philosophy with minor variations, that still lacks empiricism and repeatability, but you are right, at least psychiatrists have medical degrees, and don't have to call in help to perform the chemical lobotomy on people they don't like.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:45:40 2014 No.6651557 >>6651548 >>6651554 str8 up tinfoil hat

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:51:12 2014 No.6651560

>>6651557
I know you failed to form a rational argument, and memes are the only thing that can bring you comfort in your shitty life choices, Dr. Dipshit, but are you really denying the consistent use of neuroleptics by they psyche cult and are you simply ignorant to the large number of "Rosemary Kennedy" type occurrences in this country?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:52:03 2014 No.6651561 >>6651560 Well, I'm not a Yankee so I don't really understand the point you're coming from so it just seems kind of unhinged.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:55:46 2014 No.6651562 >>6651560 > psyche cult straw man? > Rosemary Kennedy You mean the science of 40 years ago? 70 years ago people were tortured to find exactly how long it takes for people to fall to hypothermia.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:56:14 2014 No.6651563 >>6651561 If you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, why do you think your opinion has value and your criticisms have merit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 03:58:02 2014 No.6651566 >>6651563 The fuck are you on about? I just said what you were writing is straight up tinfoil hat tier.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:04:11 2014 No.6651572

>>6651562
No, they just lobotomize with thorazine and seroquel, these days, but the results are the same, hospitals filled with people broken by the system and deemed unfit for the illusory model of society slowly built by the propagandist wing of the psyche cult/religion (which isn't a strawman, I am specifically talking about adherents of the psyche religion like psychologist, psychiatrist, and psychoanalysts who try to push some supernatural mind based idea of the brain without empirical analysis in order to siphon vast resources from the general population) that still tortures people with nonsense semantics and neurotoxic drugs with questionable effect at best that barely compete with sugar pills.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:07:19 2014 No.6651574 >>6651566 What point were you unable to follow? Nevermind, you should just go back to reddit and continue to wallow in those old memes there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:09:07 2014 No.6651575 >>6651572 You resemble a paranoid schizophrenic more than somebody rational, go back to the looneybin you madhatter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:11:50 2014 No.6651576 >>6651575 You resemble a witchdoctor more than a scientist, Dr. Dipshit, go back to nazi germany you social eugenicist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:13:30 2014 No.6651577 File: 27 KB, 375x360, Malksticker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6651576 Höhöhö. No seriously do something about that paranoia.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:15:01 2014 No.6651578 >>6651577 Yea, do something about that complete inability to argue without numerous logical fallacies like personal attacks and shitty old memes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:15:02 2014 No.6651579 >>6651572 Just because you don't realize you're strawman-ing doesn't mean you aren't. Almost every claim you make is contrary to the truth. >>6651576 Name calling now?

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:21:05 2014 No.6651584

>>6651579
Except you haven't provide a shred of evidence because you don't even attempt to formulate a rational argument, its not a strawman, they are all based in the same bullshit the split of psychology and psychiatry is no different than all the past religious schisms and they still work together for their shared religious agenda like how most religions with separate denominations, but shared values work.

I was mirroring your shitty logic for comedic effect because if all you can do is ad-hominem attacks, then I am perfectly fine mocking you with similar ad-hominem attacks that are better and more accurate.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:28:59 2014 No.6651587

>>6651584
You're the one making claims about medical malpractice.
Ever hear "I shall do no harm"?
Should I tell you what happens to me when I'm off my meds? And no they aren't "withdrawal symptoms". I had them before.
Or talk about people who hear voices and then the voices get quieter on meds.

I don't care enough to look for studies for you, but you seem to want to tell the world something so why don't you provide some evidence?

You don't seem to realize it but you're arguing with multiple people.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:40:57 2014 No.6651596

>>6651587
You could say the same thing about meds as people have said about going to church and about getting an exorcism, maybe you should just stop putting you faith in shitty religions who prey on the poor and weak.

You have never disputed a single claim you keep making vague assertions and calling me names to avoid addressing the issue, you just keep bring up old hip semantics (that are no longer is psyche favor) what exactly do you want to know, do you want a link showing the past abuses of psychologists, do you want a link showing that America imported nazi doctors and put them in high positions in the government, do you want links showing how past socially irresponsible pop culture propagandists were ineffably linked to psychology, or do you want a link to explain neuroleptics do you want me to link the story of rosemary kennedy, all of which can be easily accessed with simple google searches?

You are the one who can't empirically justify your claims with well defined metrics and has yet to make a rational argument demonstrating they can even make a claim.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:52:28 2014 No.6651606

>>6651596
> story of rosemary kennedy
go for it.
I'm not living in the 1940s.
We should discard all of medical research too because there exists experiments by the Nazis right?
They even happened more recently.

> You could say the same thing about meds as people have said about going to church and about getting an exorcism, maybe you should just stop putting you faith in shitty religions who prey on the poor and weak.
> Claim it will make you feel better
> You feel better
same as religion where
> Claim there's a sky wizard
> you'll go to heaven
> ???
> go to heaven

I take it you've never taken a pill for anything then right?
I took a powerful anti-anxiety pill once.
It put me out for a day and a half.
As in I couldn't stay awake.
Are you saying that's fake too?

I hate taking my medication. I never wanted to be on it and I want to be off it as soon as possible.
But I have symptoms that get uncontrollable without pilllz.

I'm not going to look for the articles you ask me for because I don't care enough to do research for some anonymous poster on an image board.
I've seen way too many people who hate pills and who want nothing to do with them get better from medication.

Do you believe pot doesn't change people's mood either?
Or are only drugs made by "the man" as effective as sugar pills?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 04:56:19 2014 No.6651609 >>6651606 Ooo I thought of another one. We should discard all of epidemiology because of the Tuskagee experiment.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:07:22 2014 No.6651615

>>6651606
Religion isn't about a sky wizard, it is about forming your worldview around mystical metaphysical claims or superstitions superhuman powers like believing in literal transcendent spirits and minds, so you'll go to your happy place.

>Are you saying that's fake too?
I am saying just putting you to sleep is not truly removing your "anxiety" and they can not consistently do what they say they can do and what they say they can do, usually just fixes itself over time if it is fixable, with any placebo or effort applied to your nervous system, so they should not have legal entitlement to force you on the drugs they want you to take because they can massively profit while they take away cheaper drugs that will do the same thing that you can make yourself because while pot does affect the state of thought, it does not consistently affect every person's thought and feelings in the same way because psychological taxonomy is vague nonempirical bullshit that gets completely rewritten every decade which you obviously don't know because you are using semantics and diagnoses that are no longer recognized by the psyche cult.
http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/resources/providers/dsm-5-overview.pdf

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:17:24 2014 No.6651617

>>6651615
> implying the placebo effect isn't a psychiatric treatment
> they should not have legal entitlement to force you on the drugs
they don't?
If you're going to just make up shit, no one's going to listen to you're actual points and just listen to the experts (you know them as a cult)

> that gets completely rewritten every decade
the names of the disorder change
the reason we treat them does not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:18:46 2014 No.6651620 >>6651609 Strawman, what does that experiment have to do with using ineffective semantic based (non empirical) treatment when you know there is no way to reliably predict or measure the effects and results?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:19:50 2014 No.6651621 >>6651620 What does a specific case from the 1940s have to do with treatment today?

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:27:46 2014 No.6651627

>>6651621
Chemical lobotomization is still practiced today, hospitals are filled with people who were failed by treatment and made much worse because of it and this is a foundation case involving celebrity status people with much more information that was slowly released over decades than the average psyche victim since the psyche cult is considered medical and can legally keep its treatment history and failures hidden from public view.

>>6651617
Apparently you don't understand the US justices system and how they can give exaggerated sentences for even minor drug crimes and force medication and treatment as part of parole or the plea.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:30:57 2014 No.6651629

>>6651617
>the names of the disorder change
>the reason we treat them does not.
bullshit, did you even read the overview I provide, they change the name, the symptoms, the condition, the treatment, the spectrum, literally everything that defines the basis of the pseudoscience since it is purely semantic to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:32:56 2014 No.6651631 >>6651629 Oh and they even mention in the first couple of pages that had to were forced to change much of the information in DSM5 because advances in neuroscience disproved so much of the DSM IV bullshit.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:35:21 2014 No.6651635
File: 8 KB, 300x303, 1396797554063.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6648084
>But it does provide the same level of predictability
yea, right up there with economics
fucking pathetic.
psychology is the modern equivalent of phrenology. A pathetic attempt at fully quantifying the brain - an entity which is so flexible, malleable and ethereal that we have only BEGUN to scratch at its bare surface. To boldly claim psychology as a "predictive" science on par with physics/chemistry is nothing less than outright lunacy

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 05:43:55 2014 No.6651645

>>6651629
> change the name, the symptoms, the condition, the treatment, the spectrum
yep. Psychology is young.
We treat people that are dysfunctional.
It's suppose to be optional, but there's always shitty parts of law as pointed out in >>6651627

Science changes and improves. It has to.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 06:01:33 2014 No.6651662

>>6651645
Psychology is older than Genetics and Neuroscience, so why does it have to keep changing itself to keep up with verifiable discoveries in Genetics and Neuroscience?

Do you think it might be because it is impossible to reliably and permanently innovate the objectively applicable model of the universe without clear empirical measurements?

Psychologists create dysfunctions so people need expensive potentially permanent treatments.

Scientific knowledge shouldn't completely change, it should grow in precision and add new metrics of direct physical measurement to improve.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 06:06:38 2014 No.6651670

>>6651662
> Psychologists create dysfunctions so people need expensive potentially permanent treatments.
and doctors won't give people the cure for cancer because chemotherapy costs more.
It probably happens. It's not universal though.

> why does it have to keep changing itself to keep up with verifiable discoveries in Genetics and Neuroscience?
Because humans are not rational actors?

> Do you think it might be because it is impossible to reliably and permanently innovate the objectively applicable model of the universe without clear empirical measurements?
yes.
Should we stop studying it?
no.

> Scientific knowledge shouldn't completely change
It can and does.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 06:07:44 2014 No.6651672 >>6648051 I know I am on /sci/ and philosophy is not liked here, but I think you should read some foucault about this, he got some good things to say about this subject Discipline and Punish

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 06:30:40 2014 No.6651683

>>6651670
Your argument is not rational, Genetics and Neuroscience both apply to and logically describe humans at a measurable physical level.

Fine, study it, but don't call it science, don't make others accept it as fact, study it like you would study Aesop's fable's, but don't base legal public policy like health insurance, drug laws, and jail time on your personal preference of fairy tales, base your personal actions and worldview on it you want, but don't expect others to also.

. Fri Jul 18 14:39:41 2014 No.6652194

>>6649657
Sounds like anecdotes to me. Exceptions are not the rule, and the fact is the vast majority of patients are over-prescribed. take a look at the numbers, CBT is overwhelmingly more effective than SSRI's on the general population. Hell, basic cardiovascular exercise has been proven to increase serotonin production better than prosac.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 14:42:25 2014 No.6652196 >>6648051 >Hey /sci/, what's wrong with Psychology, and what needs to be fixed? what's wrong with psychology is that it aint science. and what needs to be fixed is malaysian airlines stock market value =p

. Fri Jul 18 14:57:59 2014 No.6652210

>>6651683
Sorry, not the guy you're arguing with, but you have not put forth a single piece of empirical data to prove your case. All you've used is hyperbole and name-calling.

I'm not on either side here, but if your going to throw a fit about how psychology is a cult and how all others can do is ad-hominem, you should probably refrain from composing an argument of complete logical fallacies yourself.

You come off as a stammering child with an agenda - and yes- that is name calling on my part, but it's clear to anyone who has read this discussion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 15:27:44 2014 No.6652241 >>6651527 I agree and I'm the person you're responding to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 15:30:00 2014 No.6652244 look, psychology is basically a science but only a very young one. Say, like calculus it witnessed alot of criticism in the beginning because it did not have firm base. so is the case of psychology.it doesnt still have that firm a base

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 15:31:07 2014 No.6652246 >>6652244 also it's only studied by self righteous hipster jackasses who aint smart enough to study a hard science.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 15:52:57 2014 No.6652282

>ITT: Faggots bitching about anything more complex than engineering

When I hear shit like this thread, I wonder what the psychology faculties in the USA look like.
I study it in fucking Vienna and shit like psychoanalysis was never even considered part of the curriculum. Instead we work with the medical university and have access to anything that makes a neuroscientist wet his pants AND have math teachers fuck us up every day.
And you guys all seem to be under the impression that psychology is little more than (clinical) psychoanalysis.

So either all universities other than the ivy leagues over there suck or you guys are the embodiment of autism.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:33:18 2014 No.6652365

>>6652210
That is my point, though, there is no empirical data to analyze the only context (what empirical data would you like to know about neuroscience and genetics?) you can talk about psychology is a vague semantics like most other religions.

>>6652244
Psychology is as old as the ancient greeks.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:37:23 2014 No.6652375

>>6652282
You should not call yourself a psychologist, if you want to distance yourself from psyche nonesense, if you want to try to associate as a scientists be a neuroscience assistant, technician, a game theorist, or anything with empirical mathematical foundation instead of semantics without physical metrics or metaphysical feelings and faithful mysticism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:48:54 2014 No.6652388 >>6652246 >self righteous hipster jackasses Don't forget the stupid cunts who "just want to help people"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:49:56 2014 No.6652390 >>6652388 Are you saying they don't help people get rid of their problems? Aren't you familiar with the saying mo money, mo problems?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:51:44 2014 No.6652394 >>6652375 Caring about opinions, kek. We /sci/ not /lit/

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:55:08 2014 No.6652399

>>6652394
Exactly, thank you, psychology belongs with scientology, christianity, and other shit tier philosophies on /lit/, not on /sci/ because it is just a shitty opinion, not an objectively verifiable fact that should form public policy and consume tax money and public resources.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:55:19 2014 No.6652401 >>6652246 Implying hard sciences don't all point to some degree of metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 16:58:46 2014 No.6652407 >>6652401 >Physics >Metaphysical Yea, bro, and all faith points to some degree of objective physical measurement.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:09:31 2014 No.6652421

>>6652375
OR! Or... You Americans could stop using the word psychology wrong.
It goes back to Wundt and NOT Freud, you dimwits.

Psychology uses statistics, behavioral experiments and any findings from neurosciences/genetics to devise theories.
At least that is how we do it in Europe. I guess psychoanalysts have infested your instituted beyond repair.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:10:38 2014 No.6652423 >>6652244 >young science >older than scientific inquiry using the formalized scientific method

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:18:49 2014 No.6652438

>>6652421
Christianity uses all of those thing to constantly change itself too, so its god of the gaps is up to date. The problem is it doesn't draw consistent reliable conclusions and the basis of its theories are not physical phenomena derived from empirical measurement to generate mathematical models, but malleable semantics with poor degrading reproducibility that only work in specific circumstances that are prone to complete redefining and have no valid way to test for error or accuracy in the theories.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:28:14 2014 No.6652455 >>6652438 >changes itself completely Name one instance where empirical psychology has changed drastically due to these issues since the 19th century.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:31:07 2014 No.6652458

>>6652407
Then explain to me how order came from disorder, explain to me precisely how biology accounts for consciousness? And explain to me how the double slit experiment doesn't imply the existence of more transcendental and accountable phenomena than quantum mechanics?

Yes, hard sciences all come to an impasse in their reasoning that must be filled by some degree of metaphysics.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:37:35 2014 No.6652469

>>6652458
You assume that unsolved problems necessarily point to something "meta", but that's your assumption, and not necessarily actually the case.

Better to continue to chip away at the data and make sense of things we can make sense of, and suspend judgement of things we don't know yet, rather than making big shiny assertions. Unless those assertions are taken with a boulder of salt.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:38:24 2014 No.6652471 >>6652455 Not that guy, but but the entire field doesn't have to drastically change for it to be true that the individual psychologist gets to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to pretend to be right with no definitive reasoning behind it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:39:27 2014 No.6652473 >>6652469 Chipping away at the data is the answer, agreed, but the territory we're chipping into is currently considered "Meta"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:41:20 2014 No.6652475 >>6652473 >>6652473 Elaborated: Yeah psychology is largely undefined terms and mental gymnastics, but it's an attempt to provide a framework for dealing in "meta" terms, which science sorely needs.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:45:38 2014 No.6652477

>>6652471
So what? There are crazy fucks in every field.
This is like saying quantum physics is bullshit because people like Deepak Chopra exist.

In it's essence psychology is nothing more than behavioral biology for humans. The fact that we are our own test subjects can be a benefit, but in cases you have to work around it.

It surprises me that the country where behaviorism comes from seems to have a generally bad image of psychology.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:52:56 2014 No.6652483

>>6652477
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. The field is still in it's early stages of development, so it gets a little wiggle room with it's undefined terms. Yeah, it's been around a long time, but we're still barely grasping the dynamics of mind. As with any field to some degree. I get all this, but it's hard to deny that psych is still in it's mythology phase until we learn more about the nature of consciousness and give somewhat of a foundation for the field to agree upon.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 17:56:55 2014 No.6652490

>>6652455
Well, the psyche people just keep saying, ohh, forget about psychotherapy, nice try asserting "psychological empiricism" (counting the number of feels does not count as empirical, MBTI, and other psyche taxonomy is mystical and unmeasurable, classes of glorified drugs come and go out of favor constantly) but if you browse this very thread, besides finding other several examples, you can clearly see the overview of DSM 5 changes that were imposed last year, the changes to every DSM have been drastic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:04:20 2014 No.6652498 >>6648051 nothing

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:14:02 2014 No.6652505

>>6652421
Seriously... almost every psychology thread on this board is full of mass confusion about psychiatry and experimental psychology. Most of the commenters are either self-diagnosing themselves or are angry about how they were diagnosed by their therapist, when the bulk of psychological research focuses on perception and cognition in non-clinical populations, not unmeasurable "feels."

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:15:16 2014 No.6652507

>>6652475
Or they distract people from reality and impose shitty limitations through repetitive neural condition to impose behavior modification though the human brain's verbal, rather than purely chemical, social mechanisms and you end up with babbling fools who have nothing universally valid or valuable and just try to control your behavior with mystical talk of vague levels of spirits, minds, consciousness, feelings, orders and other words with many many possible interpretations.

>>6652483
>early stages of development
>been around a long time
How long will it have to be around before you would consider it just to be a wasted effort?

>>6652477
>In it's essence psychology is nothing more than behavioral biology for humans
In "essence" so is scientology, but in reality they use completely different jargon and taxonomy and only one set has measurable consistency even though behavior biology still has a fairly arbitrary taxonomic structure, it at least has a physical basis that can be measured for reliable analysis and consistent language and metrics.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:18:00 2014 No.6652509

>>6652505
>perception and cognition in non-clinical populations
So targeted witchdoctor mysticism to attempt to control the behavior of a population? How is it not a religion what is the empirical basis of "perception" and "cognition" that isn't unreliable self reported semantic feelings?

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:38:37 2014 No.6652550

>>6652509
Thank you for the excellent example of my gripe. Trying to figure out how vision works (or any sense, or multiple senses integrated together) is not an "attempt to control the behavior of a population."
> unreliable self reported semantic feelings?
Have you ever read a paper in a major psychology journal?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:40:44 2014 No.6652553 >>6652507 see>>6652458

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:40:52 2014 No.6652554

>>6652483
At worst psychologists suggest abstract models to explain very specific aspects of cognition. These never describe something specific in particular, but rather explain steps in what is happening.
But these are always based on empirical data.
Please give me a concrete example of "mythological" theory in psychology.

>>>6652490
First of all: Can you into English? There isn't a single correct sentence here.

>counting the number of feels
The only time any empirical psychologist "counted" emotions was when it was tested which distinguishable facial expressions exist and if they are culturally relative.
But I am assuming you are referring to stuff like questionnaires and stuff like that: Those are considered qualitative research and are only ever used to form hypothesis. When someone says "I feel sad." a psychologist does not say "This person is sad." but "This person reports being sad.".
>taxonomy
Most taxonomies in psychology are statistical tendencies and not real things scientists believe exist. Or they are simply models to explain a hypothesis.
>drugs
That's medicine/psychiatry, you retard. But thanks for proving that you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
And I certainly will not get into a discussion if pharmacology is one big conspiracy.
>changes in the DSM-V
Are you retarded or something? Nothing was drastic. Everything was up to date on the research, just like in any other medical diagnostics manual like the ICD. It added distinct forms of autism, bipolar disorder, ADHD and some others AND made some changes in specific symptoms based on research in the past years.

>>6652505
This.
Apparently to this board thinks psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are just one and the same thing.
And everybody is too butthurt because they got duped by some psychoanalyst.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:44:13 2014 No.6652555 >>6652550 >Trying to figure out how vision works The problem is, psychology does not try to figure out how vision works, psychology is concerned with finding out how vision feels.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:46:02 2014 No.6652558

>>6652554
>Apparently to this board thinks psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are just one and the same thing.
They are as much the same thing as judaism, christianity, catholicism, and episcopalianism different interpretations of the same general flawed philosophy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:49:16 2014 No.6652561

>>6652554
>Most taxonomies in psychology are statistical tendencies and not real things scientists believe exist.
This is a major problem with psychology, event the psychologists don't actually believe it exists and their questions are insincere and misleading.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:51:38 2014 No.6652563 >>6652555 >how vision feels. Right, ok... Can't you just admit you don't know anything about this field?

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:53:21 2014 No.6652565

>>6652555
...No it doesn't. It researches improvement on visual capabilities, cognition of visual stimuli, how various visual stimuli can change behavior, etc.
For all intents and purposes people are considered a foreign species, that you can ask things but may or may not mean the same thing as you or may or may not be lying.

Seriously. Have you ever read a peer-reviewed psychology journal? If anyone relies on reports to form a theory or substantial evidence, he either doesn't get published or does, get's fucked by the review and can be happy if his "research" is considered enough to form a hypothesis. Not to mention the public image the researcher gets.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:58:19 2014 No.6652576

>>6652458
Chaos, order is just a subset of disorder, there are many forms of disorder and the particular set of disorder that you personally relate to, you like to call order, but that is illusory, the brain arose from a very long existence of DNA which has the capacity to create many "ordered sets" in a sea of disorder.

>And explain to me how the double slit experiment doesn't imply the existence of more transcendental and accountable phenomena than quantum mechanics?
I don't know what transcendental and accountable phenomena you mean, but to mean it points to is unknown factors, chaos played out to the point of hard to manage large incredibly complex tensors and unknown mechanics of basic physical interaction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:59:27 2014 No.6652583 >>6652563 Since you are being brief and uninformative, why don't you admit that or actually contribute something of value to your side of the argument?

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 18:59:29 2014 No.6652584

>>6652558
You are either a troll or one of the most butthurt idiots I ever had the pleasure to read.
>>6652561
>I don't understand how statistical research works and now I am confused and frustrated.
It's okay, little Bobby. Not everyone has to understand things like factor analysis.

Go on now and build a small circuit. I know that relaxes you.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:05:11 2014 No.6652589

>>6652583
Ok, take a look at the current issues of some of the major psych journals and tell me which articles you think are based on "feelings." You'll probably be able to tell from the abstracts.

JEP general: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=browsePA.volumes&jcode=xge
PBR: http://link.springer.com/journal/13423/21/4/page/1
APP:
http://link.springer.com/journal/13414/76/5/page/1

I'm genuinely curious what you think.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:05:13 2014 No.6652590

>>6652565
>Have you ever read a peer-reviewed psychology journal?
Nothing in the textbooks and "psyche bible" or DSM is empirically valid, its like using a look up table instead of measuring anything, why would I read the journals of the application of a flawed philosophy, have you read the personal testimony of active scientologists, they report all sorts of kooky shit, too, but there is no reason to base your worldview on it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:07:33 2014 No.6652592 >>6652590 What is a "psyche bible"?

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:11:00 2014 No.6652594

>>6652589

>JEP general: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=browsePA.volumes&jcode=xge
>usceptibility to the audience effect explains performance gap between children with and without autism in a theory of mind task.
>How instructors’ emotional expressions shape students’ learning performance: The roles of anger, happiness, and regulatory focus.
>Distrust and the positive test heuristic: Dispositional and situated social distrust improves performance on the Wason Rule Discovery Task.
>Transforming the mirror: Power fundamentally changes facial responding to emotional expressions.

Really, you can't tell what when it literally says mind, emotions, and feelings in most of the titles?

>>6652592
>What is a "psyche bible"?
>"psyche bible" or DSM
Destructive pseudoscience

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:18:15 2014 No.6652598

>>6652594
You think that because it has "emotion" or "social" in the title, it is handwaving religious pseudoscience? I'm not a huge fan of some social psychology - some of it is unreplicable and lacking proper variable controls - but you can't just dismiss an entire field because some researchers study affective processes.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:18:52 2014 No.6652600

>>6652590
>I've read the overview of the smallest clinical diagnostic lexicon and know nothing of diagnostic tools or any actual research. Also I am unaware of non-clinical psychology.
Okay, we are done here.

Also:
>>6652594
>I only ever read titles of journals.
*sigh*

>destructive pseudoscience
Citation needed.
Prove that psychotherapy is detrimental.
If you are talking about psychoanalysis I'm right on board. But that isn't psychology.
Implying that stuff like behavioral therapy has no scientific basis is simply retarded.

I'm leaving now.
Work out your beef with your therapist or something. This much butthurt can't be healthy. Psychologically or otherwise. Apart from making you look like a retard.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:26:24 2014 No.6652607

>>6652600
>I only ever read titles of journals.
Why would I read more when the premise is nonsense, you asked for justification that they based their studies on feelings instead of measurement and I didn't even have to investigate further than the titles of half of the entries on the first page that literally said mind, feeling, etc to demonstrate that their studies are based on feelings?

No matter how people you successfully apply dianetics to still doesn't make up for the fact that the basis of dianetics is not based on scientific empirical measurement.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:35:00 2014 No.6652621

>>6652600
>If you are talking about psychoanalysis I'm right on board. But that isn't psychology.
You still failed to show that they aren't based in the same flawed logic, like all popular religious schisms, you just keep mentioning butts and trying to implant emotions in me instead, without realizing that it doesn't apply because I don't subscribe to your religion of emotions, brain spirits, and witchdoctor voodoo dope.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:35:24 2014 No.6652624

>>6652607
I was the one who gave you the journal links and >>6652598 but the other guy above was dead right.
Emotion is a real thing that can be empirically studied. Read the abstracts this time. Why are you so intent on denying your humanity?
>dianetics
That's why psychologists don't study dianetics. If you knew the first thing about scientology, you'd know that their main crusade is against psychiatry, so you'd fit right in with that crowd. And if you knew the first thing about psychology, we wouldn't be having this inane back and forth.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:45:25 2014 No.6652632

>>6652607
Are you even listing to yourself?
You are disregarding an entire scientific field that has had its own Nobel Prize since over 20 years because you don't like the words that are used in one of the two lexicons in clinical psychology and because you can't be bothered to actually read what is meant.

To clarify the shit you picked out:
>Theory Of Mind
Basically the ability to differentiate between your own psyche and that of others. You can test this shit on animals.
>emotional expression
Physically described facial expressions. There is even a manual on this, that goes into detail on every facial muscle. Shit, they even coded it and it will be used in stuff like robotics. In that study they tested it's influence on learning ability. Which is obviously also quantifiable.
>Distrust
Is measurable by physiological indicators. Google it.
>>6652621
>Doesn't understand the difference
>Three people try to explain the difference and provide citation
>Rebuttals "NO! YOU ARE WRONG! IT'S THE SAME THING!" over and over again

Seriously, dude. Just open the fucking wikipedia articles.
Claiming it isn't empirical over and over again simply doesn't cut it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:47:00 2014 No.6652634

>>6652624
>Emotion is a real thing that can be empirically studied. Read the abstracts this time.
What is the physical metric of emotion?
If you are such an expert, why don't you just explain it mathematically, so we don't keep going back and forth on semantics?

>Why are you so intent on denying your humanity?
Why are you so intent on considering so many human properties disorders and pretending to be clinical instead of religious so you can manipulate secular law to enforce your preferred, but baseless morals and feelings, onto everyone else?

I find it hard to fully explore my humanity because of all the legal and practical impositions imposed by the corruption of religions like psychology.

I know that arguing against scientology is where I picked up most of these arguments, and the problem is nobody can logically counter argue them, which leads me to the conclusion that scientology is the extreme of dishonesty in the ever expanding branches of psyche cult scam and is just attacking psychiatry to subvert it and try to use language to even further imply that it is scientific psychology.

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:52:55 2014 No.6652646

>>6652632
>>Three people try to explain the difference and provide citation
Where in this thread are all these citations of mathematical empiricism and proof that psychology and psychiatry aren't just branches of the same pseudoempirical (again counting feelings you have conditioned people to believe is not empirical you need to study neuroscience to get the real idea of sequential modeling of neurological conditioning and other real brain functions instead of mind processes) philosophy of mind?

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 19:57:58 2014 No.6652651

>>6652634
>>6652646
Yeah. It's all just one big conspiracy. And everyone but you is in on it. It goes as far as the Nobel Prize and medical journals.
You see the truth. Everyone else is blind.

Also 9/11 killed JFK.

Good night everyone. I think I might be done with "/sci/".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 20:00:39 2014 No.6652655 >>6648051 It needs to focus more on the shit that makes sense and not force in arguments like "BUT MUH FREE WILL" which literally no scientist worth their salt gives in to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 20:09:36 2014 No.6652664 >>6652646 I wish I could parse this word salad so I could tell you again how ignorant you are. Help me out here. You seem to be saying that unless there's an ERP or a colorful picture of an fMRI involved, it's not empirical? Am I getting this right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 20:15:09 2014 No.6652669 >>6652664 There is a good review article on this: >Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans; John-Dylan Haynes & Geraint Rees (2006) By now there is way more research on this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 20:17:56 2014 No.6652672 I think his problem is captured well by this paper, "the seductive allure of neuroscience." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778755/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 20:18:30 2014 No.6652673 >>6652646 You mean something like this? >Libet et al. - 1983 - Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 20:23:09 2014 No.6652686 [DELETED]

*** YOU HAVE BEEN VISITED BY LE PELICAN! *** post this in 2 threads or you wilI be fucking killed dead!

░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▄███▄
░░░░░▄▀▀░░░░░░░▐░▀██▌
░░░▄▀░░░░▄▄███░▌▀▀░▀█
░░▄█░░▄▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▄▐░░░░█▌
░▐█▀▄▀▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▌░░░░░▐█▄
░▌▄▄▀▀░░░░░░░░▌░░░░▄███████▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐░░░░▐███████████▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐░░░░▐█████████████▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄░░░▐██████████████▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄████████████████▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▀██████▀▀▀▀█▄
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▀▄▀░▀██▀▀▀▄▄▄▀█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▀▀▀░░░░██▌
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▄▀

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 20:25:33 2014 No.6652690 >>6652646 Or this? >Kam et al. - 2011 - Slow fluctuations in attentional control of sensory cortex

. Fri Jul 18 22:28:59 2014 No.6652839

>Entire thread about Psychology
>all these faggots harping on Psycho analysis and Personality Psych
>not a single Mention of Skinner
>not a single mention of Basic Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
>not a single mention of Behaviorism and its role in basic Child Development
>No mention of measurable Cognitive Stimuli

You Autists know absolutely nothing. Seriously, if you have a gripe with your child therapist and his diagnosis, work it out with that individual, but don't dis-credit an entire branch of Science simply because of some dipshits and their inane theories. Should we throw out all of western Medicine because some doctors mis-diagnose people?

Grow the fuck up

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 22:58:48 2014 No.6652879 >>6648997 That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a treatment to help you

Anonymous Fri Jul 18 23:09:34 2014 No.6652899

The problem with neuro and psych (and most life sciences i think) is that their practitioners fancy themselves physicists of sorts, looking for the "particles" that drive behavior. However, what they fail to realize is that behavior and cognition span many levels of abstraction and transcend any sort of simplistic cause and effect they so wish to be there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 18 23:44:19 2014 No.6652934 >>6652686 that's a Tucan you cuntnugget

. Sat Jul 19 00:10:11 2014 No.6652967

>>6648997
In most cases I would agree, but lets take extreme depression, for example: the patient so so debilitated by serotonin deficiency that they cannot even physically get up to do the therapy, a small dose of medication can facilitate the necessary willpower to actually partake in behavioral therapy. Most cases this is necessary, but there are few that there are. Then there are cases of psychosis like extreme paranoid schizophrenia where therapy isn't even possible without breaking trough the delusions

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 00:13:07 2014 No.6652970 >>6652839 I, personally, feel that personal thoughts and behavior should remain private. Any attempt at quantifying and unveiling the human mind discomforts me much in the same way that having my email spied on would

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 00:14:26 2014 No.6652973 >>6652651 It is not just me, these arguments did not originate with me, many people believe this and I am just collating information from the internet and repeating it to describe what is wrong with the pseudoscience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 00:15:40 2014 No.6652974 >>6652664 If it doesn't involve the direct measurement of well defined physical metrics and consistent mathematical model, it is not empirical and not scientific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 00:16:02 2014 No.6652975 >>6652970 I talk to a therapist weekly. I have heard my internal voice describe it as slowly drawing out my intestines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 00:22:57 2014 No.6652983 >>6648051 It needs a link with neurobiology

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 00:24:14 2014 No.6652986

>>6652839
>still not a mention of empirical science based in physical metrics

>Should we throw out all of western Medicine because some doctors mis-diagnose people?
If they have no way to directly measure effectiveness of treatment, like culture samples or inflammation, etc, they shouldn't be allowed to spend tax payer money enforcing their arbitrary diagnoses with ineffective treatments and every person should not be forced by their government and job to perform psyche cult rituals just to receive mandatory commercial insurance.

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 11:00:51 2014 No.6653545

>>6652970
Psychologists don't read minds. They mostly quantify behavior.
And if you want that stuff private, you better get off the internet. Because you are providing a shitton of data to allot of marketing agencies.
>>6652973
>many people believe something
>therefore it is a valid point
Fuck off.
>>6652983
It does. It has for a long time.
>>6652986
They do measure effectiveness of treatment, based on the same criteria as any medical doctor would do it. You know. Like psychiatrists. Who are fucking medical doctors.

First of all: A shitton of psychopathologies have a known physical origin. Especially the more extreme ones. Diagnosis is easy, due to physical testing and obviousness of behavioral symptoms. This also includes drug abuse and disorders that have obvious physical impacts (like eating disorders). Also many "behavioral" disorder that do not have a known physical origin are measurable by endocrinological testing or non-invasive neurological tests.

Now obviously there are still some disorders where we haven't found a physical cause for. What you have to understand here is that any clinical diagnosis has four "levels": Symptom, Syndrom (set of symptoms), Disorder/Illness and Cause. Like with any other medical ailment, symptoms/syndroms can vary in how strong they are, but the combination is normally distinct enough to make a diagnosis. Much like when your doctor simply checks your temperature, pulse/bloodpressure and color of your snot and can tell that you have a cold and not lupus, without doing genetic testing.
And sometimes there simply isn't any physical disorder. PTSD doesn't happen because you bonked your head, but because you have been exposed to extreme trauma. Now we may argue if stuff like PTSD or Stockholm Syndrome are really disorders and not "evolutionary" disorders. Clinically that doesn't really matter though, because doctors and therapists are not concerned with survivalism from the stone age but the wellbeing of their patient.

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 11:10:35 2014 No.6653553

>>6652986
>>6653545

And I'll repeat this again:
Psychoanalysis is not psychology.

They pathologize EVERYTHING based on BS ideas they pulled out of their ass and try to sell as science by making anecdotal references. They charge the most money, they have the longest therapies and the relapse after their "therapy" is insane. They are known throughout history for crossing ethical lines and rules like "You really shouldn't fuck your patient." is because these fuckers do it all the time.

They do more harm than good. Socially, clinically, ethically.... you name it.
If you want to rage against self-proclaimed mind-magicians, take it out on them. They are the ones who talk about shit like "collective consciousness" and "universal archetypes".
Not even mentioning shit like Oedipus Complex...

Again: In Vienna, this BS has never been part of the psychological faculty. Because we want to make it very clear that we have nothing to do with these crazy fucknuts. Unless we can get them in an fMRI...

. Sat Jul 19 13:06:35 2014 No.6653689

>>6652986
>word salad
>paranoid delusions of 'the man'
>cognitive slippage

Awww, I see it now, did someone diagnose you with schizophrenia? Don't be mad, you can still ive a fully functional life. No need to repeat the same buzz-word fueled diatribe over and over, we understand. It's not your fault kiddo.

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 13:33:29 2014 No.6653721

>>6652646
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_neuroscience
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_psychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_psychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoneuroendocrinology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoneuroimmunology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_psychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_psychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopharmacology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_medicine
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_psychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuropsychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_neuroscience
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_analysis_of_behavior
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiological_psychology
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysiology

Some branches of psychology, sub-branches and interdisciplinary branches.
None of these have the slightest to do with psychoanalysis.
As easy as google.
Now shut the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 13:36:24 2014 No.6653727 Wait so just to make this clear: /sci/ bases somethings worth on whether it is a science or not, totally and completely?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 13:38:11 2014 No.6653731 >>6653727 >/sci/ - Science & Math >let me derp this, /sci/ doesn't care about origami or anime?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 13:52:19 2014 No.6653747 >>6653731 What? I was asking an honest question, I am wondering if /sci/ is against various forms of thinking, study, etc. because they are not science. Literature, history, philosophy, apparently psychology, etc.?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 14:19:36 2014 No.6653773 >>6653747 >post off topic shit on /sci/ >you expect to be thanked People like you are why we are suffering a summer shitstorm of crystal magic and alium threads.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 19:32:50 2014 No.6654250 >>6653773 That was my first and second post(s) in this thread...not sure what was offtopic. On that note though (that OP was off topic), what board would you suggest discussions about psychology take place?

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 19:42:06 2014 No.6654270

>>6654250
Since everyone here (apart from three people) actually believes psychology is synonymous with psychoanalysis, they would want it in /x/.

Then again they would put anything there that potentially could hurt their feelings. Like the female orgasm. If they have no data on it, they consider it non-existent and then refuse to read anything that isn't covered in the 101es of math or natural sciences.

4chan is the clusterpoint in the internet for autists, self-diagnosed autists, self-diagnosed sociopaths and bronies.
/sci/ is no different.

The only reason normal people post here sometimes is because statistically there is bound to be at least one single constructive post out of the steaming piece of butthurt that is 4chan.

Also porn.

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 19:42:10 2014 No.6654271
File: 46 KB, 465x300, adderall-brain-side-effects1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6648051
Psychology is bullshit, but Psychiatry on the other hand holds much promise at least in the Land of the Free, the glorious USA.

Because faking ADHD allows intellectuals to obtain powerful stimulants so that we can publish those 12+ papers every year :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 19 19:44:14 2014 No.6654278 >>6654270 I thought things like Ink Blot tests and the following the finger tests would still be called "psychoanalysis".

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 19:54:39 2014 No.6654300

>>6654271

>Psychology is bullshit

I still don't understand this. You read the works of Carl Jung (for example) and think 'this is bullshit'? What is bullshit about it? Or do you mean 'this isn't a hard science and is even treading on philosophy', because that I can maybe agree with.

How can you quantify the 'bullshit factor' of something like Carl Jung's Red Book/Liber Novus for example?

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 19:58:02 2014 No.6654313

>>6654300
> Or do you mean 'this isn't a hard science and is even treading on philosophy', because that I can maybe agree with.

This is what I mean. When it is approached from a purely analytical standpoint and scientific methods are used to study it, then yea sure its quite scientific.

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 19:59:54 2014 No.6654315

Wow there's a lot of "Here's your logical fallacy" fallacies in this thread.

Anyways, the thing that Psychology has wrong the most is the fact that human behavior changes all the time and there's a lot of random factors contributing to the 'randomness'. Psychology cannot predict human behavior; everyone is different and those people who are different would be even more different if they were in a different environment, etc.

Fortunately, there's a lot of things that Psychology does right ( I know this is off topic but I'm bored) like interrogation tactics (making someone slip-up their speech/ telling if they're lying ) or helping someone with personal issues.

It's not perfect but doesn't need to be discredited.

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 20:01:32 2014 No.6654320

>>6654313

Well I'm not sure how that's bullshit then. Some of the most fascinating stuff comes from the field of Psychology. Some of the most basic and annoying psychoanalysis stuff also does of course, which many of us and to deal with as kids 'with ADD/ADHD'. I think that's were a lot of the bitterness comes from.

But if you think fascinating stuff like the study of savants is 'bullshit' or can rely souly on cold, hard data at this point then I would have to disagree. The unification of neuroscience and disciplined psychology is where the most advances in 'who we are, why we do things, why some are different' study. Again, in my opinion.

Perhaps something will soon evolve off of psychology as chemistry evolved off of alchemy, until then we need to keep at it I think.

Anonymous Sat Jul 19 20:06:23 2014 No.6654333

>>6654278
They are.

Look, the confusion comes from psychoanalysts constantly using the word "psychology", like they own it. And bad psychologists and psychiatrists subscribing to that bullshit.

Psychology is more or less an interdisciplinary field that filled a hole in scientific research. Because of all the specific branches, psychoanalysts just started naming themselves "psychologists" and declaring new branches of psychology.

And now due to a combination of the hype of psychoanalysis up until the 90s and the general ignorance of people about the field (mainly via stigma), most people believe psychology is purely a clinical field, it is synonymous with both psychoanalysis and psychiatry and they try to read minds.
And adding to that is the fact that a shitton of universities suck ass and put shit in the curriculum that doesn't have anything to do with the "empirical research of experience and behavior".
Not to mention that people seem to forget that there is such a thing as interdisciplinary science and just because a neurologist publishes a paper, it caries no meaning to a psychologist. Which is like saying because a chemist finds a new way to synthesize a combustible material, an engineer wouldn't be all over that shit.

Every science has it's Deepak Chopras.
Am I saying that TODAY every branch of psychology is a hard science? Obviously not. But that doesn't mean research isn't valid. And most people in /sci/ might want to read up on what scientific method actually means.

>>	. Sat Jul 19 20:12:48 2014 No.6654347 two factor theory of anxiety solves pretty much all basic phobias and symptoms of anxiety through basic conditioning principles. I'm sure a lot you fellows in this thread could benifit greatly from it. Checkmate atheists

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 10:58:20 2014 No.6655147

>>6653545
>many people believe something
>therefore it is a valid point
Why are you stealing my arguments against the pseudoscience of psychology?

>They do measure effectiveness of treatment
They measure it, sure, but not empirically, measuring feelings is not a physical consistently reproducible phenomena.

>>6653721
You still haven't pointed to empiricism, just because they keep changing names and trying to adopt scientific terms into their pseudoscience does not mean they acutally use empiricism since you didn't point to a single physical metric made by any of those branches of pseudoscience.

>>6654300
Even the people who think psychology is legit are distancing themselves from Jungian philosophy because it, like MBTI, is nonscientific using empirical smoke an mirrors to create semantic feelings and archetypes that are in no way consistently measurable.

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 11:27:19 2014 No.6655168

>>6655147
Chrrrist almighty, still harping on this, when it's apparent to anyone following this thread that you don't know what you're talking about? Just stop, your ignorance is shameful.

Do you know what repeated measures are?
Signal Detection Theory?
Principal components analysis?
Go-no/go vs forced choice methods?
These are just a few methodological and analytic techniques that are commonly used in perception and cognition research with humans and other animals. They provide robust replicable results and can easily be used in conjunction with ERP measures (but don't need to be).

I'm not sure you even know what empiricism is:
"the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience."

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 14:36:55 2014 No.6655457

>>6648084
>By observing behaviour/mental state

The practice of psychology on the masses does not implement this. You see a counselor, psychiatrist, or psychologist and all you'll get is a 30-60 min couch sitting.

Nobody observes behavior outside of this or seeks interviews from patients family/friends/acquaintances.

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 14:47:45 2014 No.6655464

>>6655457
...Yes, there are many schools of therapy implement sociopsychological aspects or prioritize them, like systemic therapy.

With some patients who are "forced" into therapy, it is because their behavior got so bad, that everyone who knew them can give you a report. Also stationary institutions constantly observe their patients.

For the more normal cases doctors and therapists usually just ask the patient about the behavior. Specific items within self-reports have a high correlation and are therefore a valid indicator to make a diagnosis.
But this is no different from an internist asking you how you've been doing. You just ask to know where to look. Then you sit them down on a computer and run some tests, if needed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 14:52:57 2014 No.6655468 How can psychologists make the right predictions or prescribe the right pills when I lie to them and they don't even know it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 14:56:45 2014 No.6655472 >>6655468 Shhh! You're screwing with their empirical evidence!

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:00:47 2014 No.6655477

>>6655468
Psychologists don't prescribe medication. Psychiatrists do.

Disorders that need medical therapy need way more than self-reports for a diagnosis. Especially the ones with the neat drugs that are hard to get.
Then again in the USA psychiatrists hand out Prozac like candy, so no idea...

But any good therapist (psychiatrist or otherwise) would only ever use psychoactive medication if absolutely necessary and with a clear neurological/endocrinological diagnosis.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:24:16 2014 No.6655502 >>6655477 You didn't actually answer his question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:29:11 2014 No.6655509 >>6648051 >Correlation is not causation /thread

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:38:09 2014 No.6655524

>>6655502
I did. Therapists don't rely on self-reports to make a diagnosis.

Depending on what may or may not be the preliminary diagnosis, you use questionnaires (no, you can't cheat on them unless you made them), neurological tests (fMRI, EEG, etc), endocrinologcal tests (usually a blood sample), etc

Obviously when you actively lie to your therapist or doctor, that complicates things allot. If the therapist/doctor doesn't notice, you gave him a shitton of false symptoms that will not make sense.
And since many doctors would rather make a preliminary diagnosis than admit that they have no idea what is wrong with you, some might just give you one.
Lying patients is not exclusively a problem in clinical psychology but any clinical field.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:39:36 2014 No.6655526 I believe that psychology is misguided speculation, and that neuroscience is the way forward in this field.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:40:04 2014 No.6655527 >>6655524 >when I lie to them and they don't even know it? No, you did not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:41:42 2014 No.6655529 >>6655524 >lying patients are a problem You misspelled "common"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:42:08 2014 No.6655530 The people who major in it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:48:24 2014 No.6655547 >>6655529 And they are also bad at it. If lying patients is your biggest problem with clinical psychology, you might want to lay off watching House.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:50:47 2014 No.6655548 >>6655468 You mean something like SWAP-200?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:52:39 2014 No.6655550 >>6655547 >you hope >ignores the lies you believe Worthless

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 15:56:05 2014 No.6655553 >>6655550 This is an issue psychoanalysts have, because they don't test shit but just let you talk and then fill your ears with bullshit. Psychotherapists/psychiatrists/MDs can deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 16:01:16 2014 No.6655560 >>6655553 >I'll take all the problems I have with patients >and push them on someone else And this is why it is a joke.

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 16:15:32 2014 No.6655580

>>6655560
No, this is why this entire discussion is retarded, because you are a tinfoil hat faggot, ignoring all evidence, because you are butthurt as fuck.
>>6652589
>>6652669
>>6652673
>>6652690
>>6653721
>>6654347
>>6655168
>>6655548
And let's just add
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychological_test
for good measure.

Simply ignoring all of this, not providing a shred of evidence (not even a concrete example) and consistently using the wrong terms is what makes you look like a faggot.

Now either start following a somewhat scientific way of criticizing or I'll simply consider you a troll and we can all move on.

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 16:21:03 2014 No.6655586

>>6648051

Psychology has a habit of misusing statistical analysis or using it improperly - small sample sizes, don't control for enough factors, use unrepresentative sample sizes. Then the implications of these results are massively overstated (admittedly also the fault of the incredibly low standard of scientific reporting/journalism in general).

Also stop getting so heavily involved in neuroscience. I know this may sound counterproductive but neuroscience is enough of a distinct discipline to require a more complex type of neurological knowledge than physiological (knowing what synaptic plasticity is doesn't make you an expert in neuroscience). Too many fMRI studies (with shaky analysis) and too few in depth e.g at a single neuron level.

Too much subjectivity in the analysis. The overuse of "expert" psychologists and sociologists in the news, generally used to try and give an insight without any substantial evidence.

This is overgeneralizing and rambling but there is a reason why psychology is somewhat of a joke.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 16:27:33 2014 No.6655592 The problem is that most psychology ignores evolution

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 16:29:19 2014 No.6655596 >>6654333 >Every science has it's Deepak Chopras. This

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 16:31:51 2014 No.6655604

>>6648051
I'm honestly not sure I've ever heard anyone in the field claim that psychology can predict human behavior with 100% accuracy. One of the first things the professor who taught my first psych class said was that, while predictions can be made somewhat accurately about human behavior, there are so many variables going on that humans sometimes just do things completely out of the blue, things psychologists never saw coming.

I think it's a very interesting field, though it does seem that pseudo-psychologists are especially visible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 16:52:39 2014 No.6655644 >>6655168 That is the same class of pseudoscience and fuzzy math that allowed scientologist to create the e-meter, I suppose you want public policy determined by scientologist beliefs now because they can audit your thetan levels?

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 17:01:45 2014 No.6655659 [DELETED]

>>6655168
I don't think you know what empirical, physical and material sense experience, and direct physical measurement means or you wouldn't be so confused.

Empirical measurement of height would be using a tape measure and the knowledge of metrics and units of length to measuring someone's from feet to head and reporting how many meters in height the person is.

Psychological "empiricism" is creating a taxonomy from very short, short, normal height, tall, very tall and asking someone how they feel about their height, then applying using the hip new semantics and taxonomy to place them in a group depending on how everyone around them felt about the same question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 17:03:30 2014 No.6655665 >>6655580 >another psychologist shill who doesn't understand empiricism and uses the same fallacies he accuses people of.

Anonymous Sun Jul 20 18:22:02 2014 No.6655777

>>6655659
Actually it's more like there is no good tape measure, so so they put all these people in relation to each other and then do a factor analysis if other variables correlate with the height, like over-/under-estimation of the own height. And if they find such a correlation the research for the causal connection is started.
So they never had to have an individual quantification to understand the mechanics that have to do with height.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 20 18:24:18 2014 No.6655779 >>6655659 >implying the metric system isn't just some guy saying "This is one unit. We will now measure everything in relation to this unit."

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 00:29:09 2014 No.6656362

>>6655777
And you are still left with an inconsistent measurement based on vague semantics and a definition of height that is indirect, inconsistent, and much harder to apply universally because it is a guess instead of a measurement.

>>6655779
Yes it is arbitrary, but it has a physical basis, so it is empirical and scientific because the measurement can be consistently and reliably repeated instead of being an arbitrary and unreliable metric that barely works and only when people have been trained to believe it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 00:35:57 2014 No.6656370

>>6655777
Basically you still have to measure height using actual empiricism to measure psychological height and after using all the fuzzy math and invalid taxonomies you are left with a subjective indirect metric of dubious value that undermines the actual measurement which has a clear material definition and universal value

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 00:58:07 2014 No.6656395 >Psychology is bullshit! >IQ threads

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 00:59:59 2014 No.6656396 >>6656395 Yep, the fact that psychology is bullshit comes up in every single IQ (and personality) thread on /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:10:47 2014 No.6656401 >>6655659 Why was this analogy censored?

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:19:17 2014 No.6656414

>>6656396
IQ was originally formulated as a tool to diagnose mentally retarded children.

It was taken further by some dudes trying to prove that black people were dumber than white people.

Now, here on /sci/, we have race threads where people post psychology and deny psychology all the time. e.g. blacks have lower IQs and therefore are dumber. blacks are smaller in this region of the brain and therefore are less capable of social empathy, etc.

these people are stupid as fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:27:07 2014 No.6656421 >>6656414 No, psychology is a stupid religion because the people are applying it correctly within psychology's own framework, it is just an irrational and unscientific framework, thus it is a religion, not a science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:37:24 2014 No.6656433 >>6656421 Yes, and you're probably the same person who thinks that there is no scientific evidence that proves that studying leads to higher exam grades. Or that that someone with half a brain isn't behaviorally different than a normal person

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:38:02 2014 No.6656435 >>6656421 > I don't know what words mean.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:43:12 2014 No.6656438 >>6656435 What words were you having trouble with there, son?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:45:44 2014 No.6656440 >>6656438 > Not understanding implication arrows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:48:52 2014 No.6656443 >>6656440 For a psychology shill, obviously you aren't good at science, but you aren't even good at trying to psyche me out or ramble with semantics to create shitty classifications and not even brevity is conducive to wit in your case either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:52:24 2014 No.6656446 >>6656443 Because I already argued with you in the last thread. You're a moron.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 01:59:03 2014 No.6656449

>>6656446
There is just this one thread, dipshit, its all still here to see and reference to build a solid argument, even though the janitor is censoring some of my arguments and analogies, you can still try justify your pseudoscience religion, but instead you choose 10 word replies made of logical fallacies, unscientific taxonomies, and personal insults.

You have failed at every turn to demonstrate psychology is a physical empirical use of the scientific method rather than a purely semantic judgmental belief structure built by the consensus of people in a position of authority applying their personal preferences and mystical interpretations of the brain to monitor and control behavior also known as a religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:02:17 2014 No.6656452 >>6656449 Fuck this has been up a long time. You claim that others make fallacies and yet you expound through every post. Go read a book if you care so much.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:04:11 2014 No.6656453

>>6656452
I have read books, but reading books does not affect public opinion and it does not change the fact that public policy and a shit load of my tax payer money is going to support a shitty religion that has tricked the military and corporate America with persistence and bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:06:27 2014 No.6656454 >>6656453 I meant to say a psychological metric fuckton of bullshit.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:11:50 2014 No.6656456

>>6656452
Also, I find it ironic that a psychologist thinks expound is a logically fallacy since so many of their theories lack the detailed explanation needed to make it a science.

Also, good argument you got there, this has been up a long time, how helpful, but in reality that means there are a lot of flaws of psychology pointed out in clear, expounded, detail and the lack of value in your post is just sad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:14:05 2014 No.6656457 >>6656456 expound logical fallacies. that's what I get for trying to use words. Your posts have logical fallacies. The post I'm responding to has one. You claim that we argue semantics when called out on your logical fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:15:40 2014 No.6656459 >>6656457 also expound doesn't mean what you think it means. just sayin

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:17:53 2014 No.6656460 >>6656457 You didn't actually point out a specific logical fallacy, though, and you still refuse to offer evidence of direct empiricism in psychology that isn't psychometric false taxonomy using indirect mystical, feelings based measurement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:29:07 2014 No.6656468 >>6656460 I've pointed them out before. You don't seem to care. > psychologist nope > psych patient yes I just sorted my pills that keep me from hearing voices that tell me to kill my family.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:32:47 2014 No.6656473

>>6656468
No, psychologist victim with a pilled up brain, you pointed to psychometrics and admitted you didn't understand what empiricism, if you already did it, you could simply point to the link or restate your argument, but you can't because you don't have one and it doesn't exists ITT.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:34:42 2014 No.6656475 >>6656473 Because you think that semantics aren't important. > you pointed to psychometrics and admitted you didn't understand what empiricism another fallacy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:42:17 2014 No.6656483 >>6656475 I was generalizing all arguments from the psyche shills. >>6652839 >>6653721 >>6654300 >>6655168 >>6655580 >>6655777 >JUNG >MBTI >IQ >etc What direct physical metric have you mentioned, then, and what do you think empiricism is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:45:19 2014 No.6656485 >>6656483 Read the papers yourself. They'll tell you exactly what they are measuring.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:52:35 2014 No.6656490

>>6656485
I read them, they are using their collective judgment of semantic feelings and mystical psyche interpretations of the spirit of the brain to create fuzzy mathematical tensors out of indirect measurements to implying they are using some kind of empirical science in order to monitor and control behavior.

Tell me exactly how you think it is an empirical application of the scientific method.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 02:59:37 2014 No.6656496

>>6656490
> semantic feelings
subjective feelings?
why can't subjective feelings be studied?
> mystical psyche
strawman
nobody studies the "psyche" anymore
> fuzzy mathematical tensors
confirmed for have never reading a psych paper.
> indirect measurements
all measurements are indirect

> Tell me exactly how you think it is an empirical application of the scientific method.
It follows the scientific method, from forming hypothesises to testing them?

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:14:25 2014 No.6656504

>>6656496
>why can't subjective feelings be studied?
They haven't discovered a physical metric to quantify subjective feelings, you can study it like a religion or a fairy tale, but they can not be empirically studied except in reference to the neuron which is the discover and domain of neuroscience which is too young to understand what subjective feeling are and how they are related to groupings of neurons.

>nobody studies the "psyche" anymore
see
>>6652594
Then they should not associate themselves with psychology (literally the study of the psyche), also that is still primarily what psychologists study according the the links to the research paper where they all want to talk about the mind, consciousness, feelings, emotions, and other nonscientific tensor metrics.

>confirmed for have never reading a psych paper.
IQ, MBTI, Jungian Archetypes, Emotion Matrices, the DSM are all examples.

>all measurements are indirect
This is an ignorant psychologist opinion.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=812
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

>It follows the scientific method, from forming hypothesises to testing them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
That isn't following the scientific method, unless testing those theories means collecting direct empirical evidence, according to your lazy method, scientology and the e-meter uses the scientific method.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:15:58 2014 No.6656506

Simply declare itself as not a science and go on. It would do wonders for the treatments if the psychologists didn't pretend to know everything beyond doubt and simply stop and listen to their patients and learn from that, connect patterns, try to make theories, but always listening first, leaving the patient sovereign about what he feels and thinks. Then real knowledge could emerge. Not a scientific one, but a helpful one.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:20:44 2014 No.6656510

>>6656504
> They haven't discovered a physical metric to quantify subjective feelings
You could just ask them.

> IQ, MBTI, Jungian Archetypes, Emotion Matrices, the DSM are all examples.
okay then you just don't what a tensor is.

> This is an ignorant psychologist opinion.
more strawmanning
I actually use to build sensors for companies like Ford and Raytheon.
Sensors are never direct.

> direct empirical evidence
like asking people questions?

> scientology and the e-meter
possibly. what's an e-meter?

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:29:11 2014 No.6656513

>>6656510
>You could just ask them.
Yea and you can just be a religion and not a science.

>okay then you just don't what a tensor is.
A multidimensional mathematical array of random information.

>Sensors are never direct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVTIj0HQ7Lw

>like asking people questions?
Nope, that is anecdotal evidence

>possibly. what's an e-meter?
It is what allows thetan levels to be enumerated and audited.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:35:49 2014 No.6656520 >>6656513 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVTIj0HQ7Lw okay then asking them questions is "direct" by your definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:37:43 2014 No.6656521 >>6656520 Nope, its still anecdotal and asking is not a measurement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:43:01 2014 No.6656524 >>6656521 And this is why you don't understand why psychology is a science. > inb4 even more strawmanning

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:44:07 2014 No.6656526 >>6656524 This is why you and other psychologists don't understand what science is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:45:15 2014 No.6656527 >>6656526 And yet the world agrees with me and not you.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:47:19 2014 No.6656529

>>6656527
For now, sort of, but Catholicism had the same sort of science status for much longer than you psychologists, I just hope people like you don't let the Scientology in on the scam against the public the psychologists have going on because there are enough shitty laws, wars, and taxes thanks to psychologists.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 03:58:15 2014 No.6656533

>>6656527
What wikipedia says about real sciences that the world really agrees on
>Physics - Physics is the natural science that
>Chemistry - Chemistry, a branch of physical science, is the study of

The word wizardry needed to make psychology seem scientific without actually calling a science.
>Psychology - Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 04:07:14 2014 No.6656540 >>6656533 also this is the wikipedia page about psychology "scientific study" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_study check those references and don't accidentally go to the scientific study of religion page.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 04:09:18 2014 No.6656542

>>6656483
>Still talking about Jung/psychoanalysis in a debate about psychology
>after being called out on this repeatedly

And since you seem too fucking retarded to understand this:
>Behavior is a physically measurable thing.
>What people say is considered behavior and nothing more.
>Psychologists don't give a fuck about what the person believes he is referring to.
>This is quantitative and not qualitative.
>You do a statistical analysis on these items with a large
>Some carry statistically demonstrable meaning and some don't.
>Those that do are now statistical variables ready to be used to do further research.
>Hey ho! Operationalization!

And now. For the love of god. If you want to criticize something in psychology, give a single theory in empirical psychology (that is significant in the field today) that is not falsifiable by empirical research OR that has been proven by empirical data that is qualitative and not quantitative AND/OR has no predictive value even though it states it does.
The important words here being:
>psychology (and not psychoanalysis)
>significant theory (and not a hypothesis that was formed before the first psychological lab)

Also you must point out specifically what is scientifically wrong with it. And you most provide evidence whenever you make assertions.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 04:16:51 2014 No.6656546

>>6656542
>empirical psychology
You have not pointed out one "empirical psychology" that is rooted in direct physical measurement and you only addresses the Jungian criticisms, instead of the psychometric, MBTI, personality, and IQ models that are also heavily criticized. The problem.

>not falsifiable
This is a big problem with psychology, it is not falsifiable because it is semantic rather than physical definitions, a science should be falsifiable and empirical with direct physical measurement and this is specifically what is wrong with viewing psychology as a science rather than a religion.

Also see >>6656540 and learn more about your precious religion of psychological "scientific study"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 04:34:25 2014 No.6656557 >>6656546 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_psychology

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 04:52:06 2014 No.6656581

>>6656546
Okay. You are either trolling or literally the dumbest person on this board.

I just explained that semantics do not come into play, because what is important about self-reports is not the quality of it, but the quantifiable statistical relation it has to the rest of the population. Since Wundt psychologists don't care about the quality of reports.

Repeatedly in this thread, people have posted studies that have used neurological measurement, reaction time, endocrinological methods, behavioristic methods, etc.

MBTI is a Jungian model. This kind of BS isn't even mentioned at universities. This is literally internet-questionaires level. The fact that you don't even know those two things makes you look exactly as silly as the test, since you honestly believe anyone even knows about this shit. I study psychology and I had to google what the fuck this is when I first saw it on 4chan.

Modern intelligence models are based on factor analysis. There is no research going into the Stanford-Binet-based tests, other than re-calibrating them for practical use, because it is the cheapest test around. Even so: IQ has proven to have a predictive value, although it obviously only measures a very narrow part of problem solving skills.

Also the only personality tests that are being used are based on the factor analysis (consistently having around a=(-).65) or biologically based (like by Eyseneck and following).

If it were simply semantic BS, it would falsify itself by having demonstrably insignificant intercorrelative values.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 04:54:20 2014 No.6656582 >>6652365 >as old as the ancient greeks KEK Mr. I read chapter 1 of an introduction to psychology book.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:04:05 2014 No.6656589

>>6656581
>what is important about self-reports is not the quality of it
So, it doesn't matter if the measurement or model is accurate you think it is empirical if you just take a number to justify your fuzzy math like an e-meter?
Also by self reports, I don't only mean that they ask the patient to self report their feelings, which they do, I am saying that there is an arbitrary metaphysical scale that the doctor semi-randomly self-reports without any objective measurement.

>neurological measurement, reaction time,
These are as much psychology tools as a wheatstone bridge is a scientology tool which means they steal another science's tool in order to misrepresent the device and misinterpret the results just to have an arbitrary number set to justify mystical conclusions that seem complex and scientific to children.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:07:47 2014 No.6656592

>>6656581
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory

This is just as bad as MBTI, but MBTI is still in wider use, since NEO-PI is favored mostly at higher levels of management and education and MBTI is government, school, and job placement and is more widely known.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:10:54 2014 No.6656595

>>6656582
How does that mean it isn't old as shit?

That still means they had drawn their conclusions about the mind and spirit of the brain long before anything was known about the brain and it would be stupid to believe someone who claims to be a scientist but knows nothing about or completely distances themselves from the root meaning of the pseudoscience they are trained in.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:21:05 2014 No.6656599

>>6656589
>Doesn't understand quality/quantity
Qualitative research would be saying "This person is fearful." when the person says "I am fearful."
Quantitative research is statistically interpreting the items. Giving them a numeric value to operationalize and norm them is no more arbitrary that measuring lengths in relation to a stick that is sitting around in France. And since we aren't running around with a new set of items with every person (unless proven to have a standardized scoring), it is valid.

And stop diverting to clinical interviews. We get it. You had a bad therapist. Whatever. It's a useless argument since diagnostics do not only work with a qualitative interview. And by your standard medical sciences should all be invalid because doctors ask their patients what symptoms they are experiencing. Nobody ever said that these types of interviews are quantitative, so please stop diverting to them whenever you run out of arguments against the actual research methods.

>steal another sciences tool
Are you retarded or something? Do you understand how science works?

I'm still waiting for the concrete criticism. So I'll just dare you again to find a study where this problem occurs. Same challenge as before.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:29:00 2014 No.6656607 >>6656592 ...No it isn't. It has a way higher validity and reliability. And I can't help it if idiots use psychoanalytic tools in their coaching seminars. That doesn't make it relevant to a discussion about the validity of a different field.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:43:01 2014 No.6656618

>>6656599
>doctors ask their patients what symptoms they are experiencing.
That isn't how real doctors diagnose, that is a strawman diagnoses and at the heart of what makes a pseudoscience, doctors take blood, urine, stool samples, run a ton of tests, use various imaging and endoscopy methods and direct measurement of clear physical body responses like EEC, EEG or MRI, and maybe to a biopsy or surgery to remove inflammation or measurable physical disease, they certainly don't arbitrarily rate a fearful (or other "emotional response" from the spirit of the person's mind) to rely on their diagnosis.

Arbitrary is not the problem, universal validity is the concern with science, if the fundamental rules are arbitrary and arbitrary metrics can scale to every case, the there is no problem with it being arbitrary and random, but if it never works after centuries of trying to make it compare to some ideal and the fundamental rules have to be changed every decade, then it is not yet ready to be called a science.

Why should I name one case where it doesn't work when I have named dozens, only for you to dismiss them with a No True Scottsmans where you claim psychology methods still in wide practice isn't truly psychology, and you can't name one case where it does work and is empirical, physical, and universally valid?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:43:08 2014 No.6656619 whiny social justice warriors, women, and faggots is what's wrong with psychology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 05:44:59 2014 No.6656622 >>6656619 no, the problem is its premise

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 06:05:31 2014 No.6656631

>>6656618
And neither do psychotherapists or psychiatrists. That's the point.

Even if that were true, research into deriving such measurements would still be considered science as long as it follows the scientific method.
Also you literally just posted a test that has a transcultural validity.

Which we have done and even you have done at one point, because you didn't bother to read the wikipedia article.
You are the one who pulled the "No True Scottsmans" by dismissing everything that used tools that are used in other sciences. You don't get to criticize it for not using tools that satisfy you and then ignore studies that do "because it simply can't be that they use it correctly hurrdurr".
And no, I dismiss methods that aren't part of the science. You simply don't get to take bad "science" that fits your preposition, call it psychology and bloat that shit on the entire field.
That's literally forming an opinion based on pop-science. It's as if I called QM bullshit because Deepak Chopra sells well.

You are the one with the burden of proof here.
So prove your preposition.
Throwing around meaningless word jumbles and either outdated or irrelevant shit and call that "naming cases".

So provide a real example or I will stop wasting my time on you.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 06:21:19 2014 No.6656647

>>6656631
I didn't dismiss everything that used other tools, I dismissed everything that misused and misrepresenting tools by pretending to be able to measure the spirit of the brain with tools that measure completely different physical phenomena, ala, the scientology e-meter and psychometrics.

You are the one with the burden of proof to demonstrate that they direct physical measurement as required by the scientific method and you can't explain why your field is so attractive to kooks and historically filled with nonsense and "Not True Psychologists" high priest witchdoctors like Jung, Freud, Lippman, Bernays, and even modern ones like Chopra and Dr. Phil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 06:31:31 2014 No.6656663 >>6656647 Yup, we are done here. Have a great life. Hopefully you never have to argue/read on a peer-reviewed level.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 06:39:12 2014 No.6656671

>>6656663
I am actually published in over 40 journals and have attended and presented at 3 conferences because luckily I started on a project when I was still an undergrad in electrical engineering and eventually got to do my thesis and dissertation on it allowing me to be one of the primary authors on a series of papers and presentations that lasted all the way through my doctorate but luckily in a truly scientific discipline there isn't so much arguing and emoting as there is research, design, and measurement, then statistical analysis on a ton of valuable data taken directly from the array of sensors instead of bickering over the hippest semantics to use that won't hurt your cash cows' feelings or reveal how uncertain and unreliable your estimates tend to be.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 12:49:46 2014 No.6657000

>>6648051
It is a bullshit science invented to get People who failed chem 101 and who didn't want to become english majors the opportunity to funnel their money to the college.
The amount of people I have seen switch to a psych major after simply not wanting the workload of an actual science is depressing.
Why care? They will all be scrambling for the same jobs in a decade and will eventually die out like the beautiful and majestic llama.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 16:01:02 2014 No.6657230

How to fix psychiatry? Scrap the DSM, move toward a nosology based on biological and genetic evidence (similar to what RDoC is trying to achieve), and incorporate pharmacogenomic and neurophysiological testing into diagnoses.

Basically, stop wasting research time and efforts on soft psychology and work on making psychiatry a true branch of medicine with effective diagnostic tools and better targeted therapies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 16:43:02 2014 No.6657290 >>6657230 Completely agree, the DSM is worthless. Of course, it is valuable to identify common mental problems, but trying to define whether something is a mental disorder or not is a pointless exercise.

Anonymous Mon Jul 21 17:28:39 2014 No.6657390

ITT: people who know nothingabout psychology

I took a BSc in London, England, and its far from pseudoscience.

Much of it is neuroscience...biology of neurons, cognitive processes activation patterns during tasks etc etc

There are some parts that are relationship science but even this is still useful, dating sites use psychologists to build matching algorithms.

You might learn a bit about freud, but its implied or explicitly stated where the pseudoscience is, and you have to remember psychology is relatively new, eventually it will get to the level of physics...

And the alternative to psychology is just asking some random guy why he thinks someone did x, instead of conducting as rigorous experiments as possible

Remember, neuroscientists are essentially psychologists....neurologists take some heavy portion of psychology in their medical studies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 19:08:50 2014 No.6657536 >>6657390 >psychology >neuroscientists are essentially psychologists Omg I haven't chuckled that hard it a good while anon. Thanks for your witty subtle response.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 21 19:11:28 2014 No.6657541 >>6657536 How is a neuroscientist not a type of psychologist?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 22 00:39:52 2014 No.6657894 >>6657541 Psychology isn't a science, you might as well be asking why a physicist is not a type of alchemist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 22 00:41:50 2014 No.6657897 >>6657894 > Psychology isn't a science only in your mind

Anonymous Tue Jul 22 00:44:50 2014 No.6657901

>>6657541
Neuroscience is a broad label. Usually used for biologists who focus on the nervous system.
Psychology has to do with cognition.
A neuroscientist may work on motor control, or simply very specific molecular processes that a psychologist would not approach.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 22 00:55:13 2014 No.6657911 >>6657897 Google the phrase, its not just one person.

Anonymous Tue Jul 22 00:59:50 2014 No.6657918

Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.

Psychology isn't science. Tue Jul 22 01:00:57 2014 No.6657921

>>6657918
But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf.

Anonymous Tue Jul 22 03:35:58 2014 No.6658041

>>6657901
>implying Neurology isn't an integral part of psychology at any uni that claims it is a science
I honestly believe that there is a huge discrepancy between the psychological education between countries. This is probably the bigger problem in the field. Actively forbidding stuff like psychoanalysis from the curriculum.
>>6657918
Well, I'd say depending in the branch of psychology, allot is still in the phase where people are trying to figure out how to objectively define and operationalize stuff. As in your example: What behavior and physical indicators does "happiness" have, which are universal, which are culturally relative and what factors in?
Bad science would be to take any of the current findings in those types of researches seriously. However, I wouldn't say that it has to be "not science" just because it is doing foundational research in some fields as long as it still goes through the same process of peer-reviewed publishing. And I wouldn't say that these type of things are by definition unmeasurable. Though the emphasis should probably be to find physical indicators before going into research on a broader spectrum.

But I do agree that there are areas in psychology today that probably are a waste of time and that some universities should put more emphasis on stuff like neurosciences, statistics, behavior(ism), psychophysiology, etc

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 22 03:37:01 2014 No.6658043 >>6658041 I meant to say >Actively forbidding stuff like psychoanalysis from the curriculum needs to be set as standard.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math