Why do people not consider psychology a "real" science? Aren't they using experimental methods in an attempt to explain certain phenomenon? Is there something I'm missing, or is it just people shitting on psychologists for the lulz? Genuinely curious.

File: 55 KB, 466x399, psychology.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:43:39 2015 No.7010896 [Reply] [Original]

Why do people not consider psychology a "real" science? Aren't they using experimental methods in an attempt to explain certain phenomenon? Is there something I'm missing, or is it just people shitting on psychologists for the lulz?

Genuinely curious.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:48:56 2015 No.7010901

>>7010896
Social sciences cannot easily be reduced to mathematics and therefore a lot of /sci/ views it as pseudoscience. However, another sect of /sci/ does accept that various areas of psychology are legitimately scientific.

The problem is that psychology is still plagued by the ghost of its father. Freud and Jung and and all the psychoanalysis types really are pseudoscientists and give the whole field a bad name. There are also branches like evolutionary psychology which try to bridge biology and social science and are mocked by anthropoligsts and biologists alike.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:48:58 2015 No.7010902

Lots of psychology is based on "hunches" and "instincts" as opposed to the scientific method. Plus, there are lots of different "schools of thought" which conflict each other, so clearly some of them are fucking wrong.
Psychology and philosophy are for people who are too dumb to get into neuroscience. Avoid that shit. Not only is it unscientific, it probably won't help you get a job either. Might as we ll major in fucking liberal arts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:51:00 2015 No.7010904 File: 17 KB, 429x241, male_female_bell_curve_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7010896 Psychologists are failed neurobiologists.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:52:28 2015 No.7010906

>>7010902
Neuroscience is in its infancy. if you want to be practical for the world that we live in right now, you're going to have to do psychology with what we have.There are brilliant people in every field, including psychology. The vast majority of people don't choose their majors based on what they're smart enough to do. Psychology has its faults, as do all soft sciences, but certain branches of it do rely on scientific logic and produce legitimate results.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 02:54:20 2015 No.7010908

Because psych results are hard to quantify with math equations. The introductory classes are taught at too low of a level for some people to understand what psych is about. Other than that it might have a bad rap because it's not taught in k_12 typically. I love psych though it helps you be a better designer

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:09:53 2015 No.7010917

>>7010902
Can you give concrete examples? I can see where you're coming from with it being based on "hunches" and "instincts", but at the point where they do experiments, doesn't that eliminate the problem of that?

I don't have any formal experience in psychology, I guess I can read a few papers and try and come to that conclusion, but if you have examples on hand or papers, it'll be easier.

>>7010906
Can neuroscience eventually predict interactions between multiple humans? Because it seems even if we can completely describe the individual using neuroscience one day, the interactions would quickly become immensely complicated, and if we have hundreds or even thousands of humans, computationally impossible (too many variables, nonlinearity, etc).

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:39:20 2015 No.7010949
File: 211 KB, 1583x825, AMX 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Why do people not consider psychology a "real" science?

Scientifically relevant people do.

High school autists and first/second-year STEM students tend to have a chip on their shoulder towards the soft sciences because they are upset about how much math they have to learn.

In my years on /sci/ I've seen a million threads whining about the soft sciences but I'm yet to see any comprehensive takedown of widespread flawed methodology within these disciplines despite rampant claims of shitty method within fields like psychology and sociology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:45:38 2015 No.7010952 >>7010902 Is observation of behavior in a tested format not scientific? You can't measure what compels people to do things with exact science. Unless it's directly related to some of abnormality in brain structure.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:56:26 2015 No.7010960 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNESB3yBCAs

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 03:58:22 2015 No.7010962 Have you ever taken Pych 101? 90% of the students are ugly women. Now, what the fuck does that tell you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:06:46 2015 No.7010970 >>7010896 Because it is infected by poisonous ideology and opinion.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:07:35 2015 No.7010971

At least in my experience the critique of psychology not being a real science comes from two things:

First is the standard at which undergraduate psychology courses is generally taught. Certainly at my university, they had to drop the requirement that psychology majors do the introduction to stats course because it had to high of a fail rate. The course itself is absolute piss and I don't understand how anyone could be expected to do research if they can't handle a course that barely touches on least squares at the hardest.

The other reason is the massive variance in the quality of psychologists. I mean some of them and as scientific as they come but for every Pinker and Skinner in the world there are 10 psychologists who for the entirety of their careers only performed surveys on undergrads. Within science academia Psych research is notorious for their biased samples and poor statistical methods. There are also more complicated issues such as the much higher rates of political research/bias and in many cases the disregard for objectivity but these issues are less prevalent than the other ones.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:16:15 2015 No.7010975

>>7010971
>much higher rates of political research/bias and in many cases the disregard for objectivity but these issues are less prevalent than the other ones
I would say they are just as fundamental an issue with psychology as any other issue. Its that rife.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 04:18:47 2015 No.7010979 >>7010896 >social science .>science l m a o

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:23:31 2015 No.7011362 Because psychology is concerned with people, and everybody here is terrified of people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:43:27 2015 No.7011381 >>7010901 >mocked by anthropoligsts Anthropology is even less legitimate than psychology when it comes to not being full of bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 12:56:59 2015 No.7011396 Because there is no working "theory of the mind." The human brain is far too complicated for traditional scientific methods and so what you get is more of a medical field than a science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 13:21:52 2015 No.7011441 >>7010949 OP here, I was researching this online last night, came across this article: http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634 This seems to address the widespread flawed methodology.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 13:32:33 2015 No.7011457

A lot of correlation, not a lot of causation. Scientists like to make predictions, but while psychology can reach conclusions about people in general, it can't predict the behavior of an individual. Obviously, humans are complex, so none of this is surprising, but it still bothers some people.

A lot of the criticism I see is based on popular studies, which the general public eats up. These are weird, counterintuitive findings that are just flashes in the pan. They are interesting and they make the blogs, but they often can't be replicated. Nobody sticks around for that last part though; they've already moved on to the next big finding. At its core, however, psychology isn't about that kind of work. It's in the trenches with the other researchers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 13:49:48 2015 No.7011475 >>7011381 Anthropology is legit. Yeah, it's definitely not a pure science but there is literally an anthropology subfield for everything though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 13:54:30 2015 No.7011484 Will we ever truly know what it is to be inside someone else's mind, not talking about generalizing or toying with a person's mind? Is this just beyond science?

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 14:08:14 2015 No.7011509

>>7010896
>Aren't they using experimental methods in an attempt to explain certain phenomenon?
There's more to science than that. There is also an essential element of intellectual discipline required.

For instance, consider the phenomenon of not being eaten by tigers. I experiment by carrying a charm for a year. In this entire year, I am not eaten by tigers. I conclude that the charm protects me from tigers.

I have used an experimental method in an attempt to explain a certain phenomenon. But it's a bad experimental method, and I reach a bad explanation. And it doesn't become science if I have an advanced degree, wear a lab coat, carry a clipboard, get funded by a university, do statistical analysis on my data, get published in a peer-reviewed journal, teach my findings as a professor, or get my result printed in college-level textbooks used in ivy league schools. Science is not about the superficial form of what you're doing or how many people, of what social status, agree to call what you're doing "science".

Some research done as psychology can be called science, but most of it can't. Most of what you learn if you take a degree in psychology isn't based in science at all. It's just opinions and musings dressed up as science.

Recommended reading:
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 14:20:19 2015 No.7011531 >>7011509 >feynman.html Talk about a cult.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 14:24:59 2015 No.7011540 >>7011531 >I see this link a lot. It must be because of mindless groupthink, and not because it contains a really good point that's explained very clearly. Better shitpost about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 15 14:34:05 2015 No.7011556 >>7011540 >groupthink >psychology term >gtfo.bat

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 14:54:36 2015 No.7011588

To put it simple, and this is coming from someone undertaking psychology...

Scientific experiments use the scientific method and standardized tools, units and globally accepted constants.

Psychology often uses the scientific method, but is not always reproducable due to having acquired data through surveys, naturalistic observation - therein lies many an opportunity for bias, wrongful emphasis and so on.

tldr; if you can't reproduce it - it may not be an actual conclusion and merely just a cultural or local time-centric finding.

Anonymous Thu Jan 15 15:24:14 2015 No.7011627 [DELETED]

File: 97 KB, 512x1920, smug34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Jew Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Science

Jewish Physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

Frankfurt School (all jew club making a pseudo-science called sociology)

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Karl Marx (Jewish aristocrat fag who tried to play the poor)

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Psychology ( a pseudo-science made by jews)

http://www.jinfo.org/Psychology.htm

You may ask, what was their goal?

To make distraction from the real knowledge and important topics by overcrowding the scene and injecting disinformation which leads to disorientation of the masses and makes the capitalism, or the jew money making machine, stronger.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 16 15:47:38 2015 No.7013635 File: 722 KB, 1864x501, Fibonacci_spiral_bot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 01:14:40 2015 No.7015010 >>7010896 When human is the main subject, it's never a science. Medicine psychology ...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 01:22:14 2015 No.7015018 >>7015010 Tell it to your coronary when I will put thienopyridine in them while you infarct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 01:32:33 2015 No.7015030 Because Pysch is what the dumb-er kids in high school take to feel like they're good at the sciences; the stigma has been around since.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 01:35:58 2015 No.7015032 >>7015030 Oop's thought the question is why we hate phsycology. >>7011509 Explained it prefectly, as a science that is so watered down for more "normal" people so much that it isn'ta science anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 06:48:53 2015 No.7015273 >>7010901 >There are also branches like evolutionary psychology which try to bridge biology and social science and are mocked by anthropoligsts and biologists alike. Can you give examples of this mocking?

Anonymous Sat Jan 17 06:57:22 2015 No.7015277

I'm currently doing my master in psychology. I've worked in a psychiatric hospital for 6 months during my bachelor and seen the positive results in the vast majority of the cases.

The scientific methods may not be on par with any hard science but you can't argue with the results.

Anonymous Sat Jan 17 07:11:17 2015 No.7015287

I don't think that psychology is properly represented here on /sci/ Most people interested in psych are on other boards. Here are a few interesting experiments of psychology that have been performed and peer reviewed many times.

The Milgram Experiment

The Marshmallow Test - A study in delayed gratification

The Bystander Effect

The Asch Conformity Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Pavlov’s Dogs

The “Missing Child” Experiment

Harlow’s Monkeys

The Monster Study

Change Blindness Tests

Derren Brown's Assassin and Heist experiments

Anonymous Sat Jan 17 07:49:14 2015 No.7015297

>>7015287
>Most people interested in psych are on other boards

I presume that a lot of psychologists don't post on here because there's no point to it.
Why take your time to argue with people when the dogma on /sci/ is "psychology = unscientific shit for people too dumb to go into STEM fields"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 17 17:22:51 2015 No.7016330 >>7010896 >Why do people not consider psychology a "real" science? There's no firm philosophy of psychology so psychology just hangs out there unconnected to anything. It's not even wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 17:31:32 2015 No.7018203 >>7015287 >The Asch Conformity Experiment This one is a crock of shit. If the others ones are even similar to this, no wonders people have strong doubts on the discipline.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 17:42:48 2015 No.7018222

>>7010896
Too much of it is driven by politics, opinion, and personal ideology, and too many flakes are able to pass themselves off as members of the field.

Many of its members seem to actively dislike those who try to apply the scientific method to it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 17:49:04 2015 No.7018233 >>7015287 >The Stanford Prison Experiment Experimenter actively encouraged the behavior he wanted to see.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 18:06:55 2015 No.7018266 >>7010906 Or we just can demean physiology even though other fields of science has faults.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 18:21:38 2015 No.7018286 >>7018266 >physiology That's an entirely different thing, anon. Regardless, when one field's faults dwarf the rest and huge parts of the field are in denial, the excuse of "other fields have faults" doesn't really hold up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 18:23:30 2015 No.7018292 >>7016330 >thinks Asch conformity experiment is crap >posts on 3rd smartest board Checks out

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 20:07:50 2015 No.7018398

Just take a sec and skim the DSM-V if you get a chance. Tell me that's science. It's not. It's ridiculous, and psychology is more politically motivated than any other field I can think of. A considerable amount of it is also driven by pharmaceutical companies, I would say even moreso than actual medical research.

Also, the most striking thing to me after reading the DSM-V, is that it seems that nobody can be bad at anything anymore. It's a disorder. Everything is a disorder, or being looked at as "problematic". Bad at math? Disorder. Awkward socially? Disorder.

My take? After having worked with the mentally ill for two decades, with multiple populations, it's a joke. Some of my clients take hundreds of thousands of dollars of meds yearly. Don't get me wrong, there's tons of great work being done on the ground with these people, but most of it boils down to "be caring, put up with their shit".

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 22:39:48 2015 No.7018606

>>7010896
Nobody fully understands consciousness and the mind so it's very hard to put up concrete laws of behavior and thinking in something that is so terra incognita. We can run experiments and say "Well all males seem like bewbs whereas all females don't." Or something, but I'm sure you could even find some girls that liked bewbs and guys who didn't and why this is fuck if we know.

Sure you can preach "Hormone imbalance." or some stupid shit but even that's a load of bull.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 23:10:54 2015 No.7018651

>>7015030
Are you retarded? People who are doing top-level psych research aren't doing it because they're too dumb for physics, it's because they like psychology. The top people in literally every field are in it because it is the field they enjoy. What do dumb undergrad psych majors have to do with psychology as a social science?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 18 23:47:26 2015 No.7018707 According to Stephen Hawking, the goal of science is to find a theory that can explain the whole universe. Some people think that psychology can't help towards that goal.

Anonymous Sun Jan 18 23:59:55 2015 No.7018719

>>7010917
Different person.
I don't think neuroscience is really in the business of trying to figure out human interactions beyond pathogenic processes such as with child abuse, developmental neuroscience, etc.

But if we assume that in the future, if we can solve all of these problems, then psychology based on advanced medical imaging and tests would probably be sufficient to predict interactions between multiple humans.
I mean things like a fMRI scanner headset which is light-weight with high resolution, arrays for testing blood hormone levels, heart rate, etc. Then we could find which region of the brain is active at what time, when it goes wrong with those with social problems, developmental problems, torture victims, accident victims, etc etc.

Someone will probably call me out on all this being unrealistic or not being sufficient to produce meaningful data about interactions between multiple humans.
My point is that, if we can create technology which can measure useful parameters, whether it be large numbers of individual neurons, or generalized activity in the brain, if it gives us meaningful results then we can do it. If we can't create the technology then we can't

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 00:13:19 2015 No.7018738 >>7018398 That's psychiatry. It's not the same thing. Psychiatry is a religion. More specifically, it's the established state church.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 00:48:30 2015 No.7018785

>>7018719
this is already in the works.
neurobiotics has done great things for understanding our base reactions and damages/misplaced connections in the brain, as well as just how alike brains are in very different types of people.
there is an issue with the whole bit where everyone is defined as much by their hometown/experiences as their biology, but we're quickly gaining in the ability to map the brain (and the "electrical clouds" of information weaved within) and define how interpersonal relationships develop, like those goggles that can help with social anxiety by tagging expressions and shifts in facial expressions for peeps that don't have as much of a natural talent for it.

v. s. ramachandran is a good start for seeing the way neurology and psychology are bridging and making each other more immediately relevant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 00:56:42 2015 No.7018792 >>7018203 >>7018292 i think this was to this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 02:10:29 2015 No.7018913 >>7010896 Ethics concerns dealing with human-experimentation. Can't call it a science without experiments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 03:02:45 2015 No.7018990 >there are people on /sci/ right now who actually believe psychology is a science ebin. simply ebin

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 03:11:30 2015 No.7018998

>>7010896
It's extremely politically influenced/motivated, has a low standard for statistical significance/"proof", and has poorly defined results. The same holds for a lot of other social sciences, IMO. Although really, I'm more bothered by how biased media sources twist studies from the social sciences to support their opinions.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 04:37:50 2015 No.7019127

>>7010896
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fyovWBAgCnc

Also, there are psychologists who would never give credit to anything which isn't coming from a strict scientific procedure, involving properly done statistics and peer reviews. But there are also those who believe some complex phenomena are not really observable with current methods but 'are there', and so are worth thinking and saying something about.

a bit like the two protagonists in x-files tv series if you've watched that

>>	Newt !!3IMzrLQ6gUF Mon Jan 19 04:46:05 2015 No.7019136 >>7018913 So astronomy isn't a science? Sophisticated experimental design can allow you to test hypotheses and extract information simply from what nature gives you. You have to do better than that.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 04:49:20 2015 No.7019139

>>7010896
No physical metrics for the motivation behavior beyond physical neural explanations, once you get into quantifying personal feelings and measurement becomes self reported evidence and subjective calls made by trained guessers, you lose your basis in scientific method.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 04:59:04 2015 No.7019143

>>7010896
lets see what centuries of study has yielded
>physics: spaceships, satelites, computers, internet
>chemistry: antibiotics, drugs, fertilizer
>biology: treatments for various diseases and organ transplant, even therapeutic plastic surgery and gender swap

>psychology: highly controversial IQ tests & book of mental sicknesses that need to be revised every year to accommodate political correctness and changing views. also a little cute handbook that these 'psychoanalysts' carry around to 'diagnose' patients, similar to a priest and his bible

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 05:02:41 2015 No.7019145 >>7019143 Dude psychology didn't have the same tools other sciences had. Plus the topic itself is hard. Because of the huge individual variability. To quote Sapolsky, human behavior it's more like clouds than clocks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 05:03:11 2015 No.7019146 >>7010962 I hope you're not implying that a 101 course is indicative of an entire field.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 05:06:28 2015 No.7019151

>>7019145
>Plus the topic itself is hard

maybe because your field was populated by the sub-level scientists while the intellectuals were busy making models for unknown particles and advanced telecommunications.

your field pursued a goal to quantify human behavior through bad methodology, has nothing to show for it after all these years, and all you can say is that "its hard" - even when faced with arguably overwhelmingly more difficult problems that other scientists in other fields have encountered? have you ever read a book on electrical engineering? material engineering?

fuck off, even neuroscience can regenerate cognitive imagery through MRI to a certain degree. psychologists are literally cancer

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 05:18:32 2015 No.7019160

>>7019151
You're mad and biased, but I can understand that. They kick your ass in STEM fields, having to spend hours all day erryday on difficult shit and then you refuse to give credit to people who didn't work 1/10th of their ass off like you did and yet claim all sort of shit. But implying we didn't have geniuses in our field is arrogant as fuck. I'm equally skeptic as you in the psychoanalysis mumbo jumbo, and that some variables are hard to quantify, but you can't claim problems in your field are 'harder' than those psychologists have to face and we can't solve them coz we get the less intelligent people. Plus psychology itself is a field transforming itself, it's not anymore what it used to be. As you day with the help of neuroscience and new tools to explore, it will get more credibility in time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 08:12:26 2015 No.7019285 File: 189 KB, 960x792, laughingwhores.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7019143 >IQ is controversial

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 09:17:46 2015 No.7019318 >>7010949 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 09:24:21 2015 No.7019329 >>7010904 what's that graph from? anybody know?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 09:48:17 2015 No.7019355 File: 48 KB, 400x462, 1418334318651.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7019285 >IQ isn't controversial

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 09:55:06 2015 No.7019359 >>7019285 >implying it wasn't

>>	newt !!rqU5hDuNPvX Mon Jan 19 10:00:34 2015 No.7019365 >>7019355 IQ is controversial amongst left-wing, politically motivated people who do not study it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 10:09:22 2015 No.7019374 >>7019365 IQ is controversial amongst anyone with an IQ above 50

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:03:53 2015 No.7020152

>>7010896

if you will find a way to determine through a scientific method a chemical unbalance i.e., or just the reality of an I.Q., then you can be considered a true science, actually you had not demonstrate through scientific methods, instead using a "scientific approach" to the subject, that a nevrosis, or psychosis are real and demonstrable by scientific devices or just literally the famous "scientific methods". For me, you'll remain always on the line of the "pseudo-science", no matter who I can find in front of me, you're equivalent to the old ages wizards, if you want to take the joke up.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:08:12 2015 No.7020160

>>7019374
That category includes the legally retarded, people with an IQ in the low 50s are incapable of learning to read or write and are high functioning retards, they are not capable of understanding the concept of IQ at all so it is not controversial among them, it's only controversial among people who can understand the general idea but completely fail to understand the details or implications.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:11:09 2015 No.7020170 >>7019374 It's such a singular and limited way of gauging intelligence, which is not something that can be measured in such one dimensional approach.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:13:29 2015 No.7020176 >>7020170 Which is why they have verbal, spatial, mathematical etc etc IQ measures on the full panel. >>7020160 This. People don't understand how dumb 50, 70. 90 is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:22:18 2015 No.7020188 >>7020176 It still depends on how that test is conducted, if you have a test that includes everything you see as the qualities embodying intelligence. This goes beyond the mere content of the test.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:24:32 2015 No.7020193

>>7010962
>Have you ever taken Pych 101?

I took Psych 101 many years ago. I was very fortunate that my instructor fro Florence Denmark herself (former APS president, and a totally awesome person). In that class, I became convinced that there are 2 separate disciplines: one is hard science (designing good surveys, statistical analysis of the results, and in the last few decades measuring brain activity too); another is pure humanities (surmising stuff that can't be tested). They should be treated as being completely separate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:34:40 2015 No.7020214 >>7020188 sure, but it's disingenuous to claim this is a reason to dismiss IQ.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 17:56:08 2015 No.7020249

>>7020214

To test what you see as intelligence will reward those who have the qualities of what you see an intelligent person.

If I go to a country where the majority speak another language other than English as their first language. Then I find a person within this country who is only fluent in another language or dialect other than English, which I then test to your criteria (aka test is in English), it leads to an interesting occurrence. This persons test results show an inability to answer the questions correctly or coherently in English and subsequently their lack of intelligence within English, but they are intelligent within their local language or dialect when completing a translated test.

However, you are focused on the content which may cross over languages (common symbols), but the majority of the content is not able to be understood and that is reflected in the test. In the end, you would judge this person as less intelligent in English, as they do not meet your criteria of intelligence as you are focused on the content only.

If you catered for their needs, you would be going beyond the content of the intelligence test, as you would be focused on the delivery of the content. It shows that intelligence varies from location to location. This proves my point that the test should be conducted in terms of the person taking the test, which makes a difference if you are really attempting to determine their intelligence: aka lets make take a consideration for the person taking the test.

Also, I am not the person you quoted before me.

Anonymous Mon Jan 19 18:06:47 2015 No.7020278

>>7020249

I have to make a correction, the issue I have with IQ testing is not about dismissing it, as it does have have a purpose, but it can be used incorrectly to make claims that are not completely accurate.

I cannot find a test, which is adequate in length (short or long) that adequately records information to determine intelligence and does so that caters to the needs of the individual taking it. Certainly, you can meet the first point quite easily if you look at the IQ tests going around, but you need to be considerate of the individual taking it. Otherwise, you may be seeking individuals who fit into your desired category of intelligence, which magically finds those intelligent individuals who wave around their IQ test result/s.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:06:03 2015 No.7020952
File: 26 KB, 310x273, 1282186321608.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7010896
As someone with a Molecular Cell Biology degree, and a brother with a Psychology degree I'll say...

It's a soft science, but harder than I gave it credit for.

The hardness of a science comes in the predictability of data in my opinion. I mean, ArBr + Mg -> ArMgBr every time.

Can you always predict people? No. Hence I say soft science. But you can get -creepily- accurate.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:33:37 2015 No.7020995

>>7020249
>>7020278
>implying they don't check IQ tests in different languages with bilingual people?
>implying people with degrees in the field don't spend hours agonizing over these issues and haven't properly accounted for them.
>implying the people using these tests, compiling this data don't know when it is appropriate to use these measures.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:39:46 2015 No.7021000 >>7010949 They don't even have measurable empirical metrics that are based directly in physical reality, psychometrics are removed from measurement by at least a couple layers of abstraction and fuzzy math based on subjective approximation.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:41:18 2015 No.7021003

>>7020952
>Can you always predict people? No. Hence I say soft science. But you can get -creepily- accurate.
If you think about it that's the basis of the "mathematical sociology" from the foundation series. You can't predict a person. But you have enough accuracy to predict enough people.

I'm not saying it's real. Just think about it

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:44:18 2015 No.7021008

>>7011362
No, its concerned with millennia old theories of minds and the psyche which are dubious immeasurable claims based on past superstitions that have already been predominantly replaced by better physical neural and biological analogs that serve actual empirical sciences instead of 19th century witchdoctory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:44:45 2015 No.7021011 >>7021003 The predictability is what makes it a science period. I was just saying that they can predict people way better than I first thought possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:46:06 2015 No.7021012 >>7010896 This thread is so boring

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:47:08 2015 No.7021015 >>7015287 Derren Brown That isn't psychology, that is mentalism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:54:46 2015 No.7021021 >>7019136 What ethical concerns consistently prevent astronomy experiments from being performed as designed, thereby muddling the results of half hearted hypotheses?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 00:57:51 2015 No.7021030

>>7019145
Its hard because the things being measured don't physically exist and experimenters are tasked with creating quantified physical empirical measurements from subjective observation based on abstract semantic qualifiers which obviously produces inconsistent results based on the experimenter at best.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:00:06 2015 No.7021032 >>7019365 Then why are there hundred of IQ tests all of which produce difference results often even when the same subject is given the same test later the same day?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:03:08 2015 No.7021033 >>7020193 Why not just take the good objective methodologies over to neuroscience and dismiss the rest of the psychology bullshit for what it is?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:07:12 2015 No.7021036 >>7021011 anon, I agree with you. I'm just expanding on it. I just wanted to be cautious and not imply that I think mathematical sociology is currently a reality

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:08:22 2015 No.7021037 >>7021032 full panel IQ given by an trained professional vs. IQ test you found online

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:17:15 2015 No.7021050

>>7021003
Yea, but psychology studies have shown that if you simply put in a few physical and social controls and restrictions, and only report the hits, you can artificially limit the available behavior to a few things that easily fit into your pigeon holes even if the overall structure of your behavior model makes little sense or has application outside of your study.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:19:27 2015 No.7021053 >>7021037 There are still dozens of full panel IQ tests that have been developed, they still don't fully duplicate with repeated testing, and they also constantly go in and out of favor in the testing community.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:33:46 2015 No.7021063 >>7021053 define "fully duplicate"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:39:10 2015 No.7021068 >>7021063 make an identical "measurement" of intelligence

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:43:17 2015 No.7021074 >>7021068 ok, that's impossible.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 01:46:39 2015 No.7021076

>>7021074
I know, that is why I put measurement in quotes, it is impossible to actually measure psychometrics because they are interpretations of abstract semantics rather than physical quantities of properties of matter which is why the entire premise of psychology is flawed.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 02:06:27 2015 No.7021098

I think that people don't consider it a "real" science, because it isn't as intensive and concrete as the other sciences are. You can prove things in physics, biology, chemistry, etc. However with psychology much of their material is based on hunches and observing behaviors.

Tldr; not measureable, not always proveable, commonly flawed logic is accepted.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 11:21:11 2015 No.7021317 >>7021008 Why take the time to post something when you have no idea what you're talking about? What do you get out of it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 11:33:39 2015 No.7021335 >>7010896 Psychology is a science, but all psychologist I've met so far, are weirdos who talk about soul and shit. They taught me to hate psychology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 11:37:23 2015 No.7021341 >>7018707 Hawking is but a man

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 11:39:48 2015 No.7021344 >>7018738 0/10

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:18:32 2015 No.7021514

social science is neo-marxist garbage pretending it isn't a shitty religion

1. Make an unprovable assertion based solely on your feelings
2. Dress it up with a bunch of smug hark at thee bullshit to impress empty-headed college kids giving an illusion of objectivity
3. Somehow gain a foothold in popular culture, politics and the media

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:41:51 2015 No.7021580 >>7010896 It is considered a real science, no one cares what some highschoolers on 4chan think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:43:36 2015 No.7021586 File: 124 KB, 609x607, 1421725835051.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7021580 >It is considered a real science And then you woke up and had your cornflakes

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 13:54:01 2015 No.7021616 >>7021586 I'm a chemist. Just annoyed at highschoolers who think they have any idea what "science" is. Go back to watching big bang theory

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:33:49 2015 No.7021742 >>7020160 > implying anonymous alcoholists and several extreme junkies whom fail to understand the details etc. etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:36:47 2015 No.7021749 >>7021032 why people must be the same people 24/24 h.? Do you think of REM state and how people can mutate their feelings during only 1 day?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:38:31 2015 No.7021752 >>7021098 you're speaking this because you're not directly in front of a psychiatrist or a psychologist, kikie

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:44:25 2015 No.7021763

>>7021616

yes, when you deal with a scientific research team to develop a psychiatric drugs you will say all details of how many atoms are in a single particle or just that the moron supposed to cure the idiot nr.2 knows that every molecule they sold have at least 1 C particle inside?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:51:46 2015 No.7021773 My sister has a PhD in psychology Literally just a load of bullshit, it's still in its infancy like any study of the human mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 14:55:36 2015 No.7021778 >>7021773 well, there are some genre of researcher as neurologists that seek to study how brains react using scientific methods, thus provable.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:00:47 2015 No.7021786

The majority of Psychology is subjective and indemonstrable. Psychology has some potential avenues for legitimacy if you shed off all of the social and therapeutic science-posing, however it's ugly cousin Psychiatry is such a massive industry that this is less likely to happen. Psychiatry as it isL completely unscientific, all based on subjective checklists and closed door determinations of what is and what isn't diseased human behavior, emotion, and thought. And it's widely popular and much more powerful and profitable.

A science? Not today, probably not tomorrow, and I doubt it will be any different in a couple decades. If a real doctor used the standards of psychology or psychiatry, he or she would lose their job rather quickly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:05:55 2015 No.7021794 >>7021778 You mean psychiatrists who draw upon it and mix it up with bullshit? Psychiatry is at square one. It's literally a case of trial and error and makebelieve. If you ask a psychiatrist they will admit this.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:08:53 2015 No.7021797

>>7010896
You know why /sci/ calls psychology a pseudo science?
Because if you look up allele frequencies on ALFRED for alleles associated with low/high IQ you find things that /sci/ doesn't want to accept; because they think it ruins the whole "all men are created equal" thing.
So /sci/ can call IQ and thus psychology pseudoscience
Or /sci/ can call ALFRED and thus biology pseudoscience.
But neither are pseudoscience.

http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/
scholar.google.com

These are FREE resources. You can do this while eating your hot pockets. What are you going to do when the Beijing Genomics Institute finds even more IQ genes?

To be clear:
All men and women are equally deserving of respect
All men and women are equally deserving of self determination
All men and women are equally deserving of a free life
All men and women are equally deserving of the fraternity of mankind
But some populations are genetically predisposed to being dumb.
Some Asian and European populations have lower frequencies too; it's not just "black people."
It's a really complicated situation.
But this is what the science tells us.
The science is the science is the science.

Every time you delete these threads instead of investigating, you put people like /pol/ in charge of looking this shit up. You are abdicating your responsibility to stormfront. What happens when people with extreme prejudice and bias spend the next years correlating IQ genes with populations and have this well sourced but biasedly accumulated data, and your only response is "lol IQ is pseudoscience"? Who's going to take you seriously when you say "neuroscience showing differences in neuroplasticity is pseudoscience?"

You think Nature turns down articles sourcing Nature and ALFRED? It doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:11:30 2015 No.7021804 >>7021797 where is the psychology there?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:14:04 2015 No.7021811 >>7021804 IQ is psychology. But IQ matches up with neurological differences that are measurable.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:14:35 2015 No.7021814 test

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:15:02 2015 No.7021815

>>7019365

IQ is a vague measure with only statistical value. To have individual value the results have to be significant and supported by other findings.

It isn't static for any one person and it's been demonstrated that you can learn and condition your mind to improve your IQ. Further, a high IQ doesn't always mean better performance or a higher cognitive ability. Statistically you can find that it tends to, but on an individual level you can see different styles of thought perform differently than IQ would predict.

Since you can't hold intelligence in your hand, IQ isn't a measure of intelligence, it's a measure of certain chosen traits and our best guess on how to glean who's better at them. We then interpret that as intelligence. Things can go wrong and change throughout that process, and in fact the person taking the test can change.

For now, it's only useful as supportive statistical data. For example, for social issues and policy creation. Using it for anything more is a mistake, especially when the mastery of skillsets are far more important to a person's life, society, and performance in their field. Skillsets are also more worthy of respect than a high IQ.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:15:28 2015 No.7021818 File: 715 KB, 1000x667, psych.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7021804 >>7021794 > You mean psychiatrists who draw upon it and mix it up with bullshit? I mean the average psychiatrist in their spectrum of gawdly witnesses.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:18:16 2015 No.7021830 >>7021815 >IQ is a vague statistical measure. A vague statistical measure that correlates with neuroplasticity >>7021797

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:18:56 2015 No.7021834 File: 15 KB, 288x392, 1390761916914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7021815 IQ more like WQ (white quotient) What about a test on if you're sporty, stoic, romantic and expressive?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:26:30 2015 No.7021850

>>7021830
>>7021811
>But IQ matches up with neurological differences that are measurable.

Not always, and when it does we're talking significant differences. This doesn't prove IQ any more than having the person play Jeopardy and seeing them get no answers right somehow proves its validity in diagnosing intelligence and deficiencies. If you did this for enough people watching Jeopardy, you could form a statistical Jeapardy Quotient which appeared to be able to detect certain neurological deficits.

But would a Jeapardy Quotient qualify as a scientifically reliable measure equal to a legitimate neurological diagnosis? No, it wouldn't. You can't actually draw conclusions from an IQ. Correlations which depend on very obvious deficiencies are useless and don't lend credit to IQ as a individually useful diagnostic tool.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:27:10 2015 No.7021853
File: 165 KB, 962x373, 7463443.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7021797

you're just too prosaic for be a normal, at least on the average. From what I see, all I can say to you is that you suffer from a compulsive shit disorder who makes you unstable and needful of been cared with Lurasidone 180 ug, hoping that you will fell better suffering years of side effects including diarrhea and dumbness at work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:30:45 2015 No.7021861 >>7021853 How does him being obsessive or eccentric make him psychotic? Psychotic people are actually stereotypically 'crazy' like you see in hollywood.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:33:55 2015 No.7021867 File: 126 KB, 1200x600, 32423423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hey ppl, can you pls give us 200m to help our poor kids and our families?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:35:25 2015 No.7021870

>>7021861

Not always, in fact most of the time they aren't and the drug he suggested can be prescribed for an array of theorized conditions (what most diagnosis are) which are thought to be prone to psychotic or manic episodes.

The speed and sloppiness of his response, analysis, and diagnosis ending in a prescription is actually a great satire of psychology and psychiatry as a science. Even if that poster didn't intend it, it made me chuckle.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:36:16 2015 No.7021873 >>7021853 My prose is straight forward therefore I need anti psychotics. Quality post anon.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:42:27 2015 No.7021889

>>7021870
Really, aren't clinical depression, schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and severe bipolar disorder the only psychoses that need medication? (I leave out anxiety because there isn't a working medication afaik) They don't medicate people for being eccentric nowadays do they?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:54:25 2015 No.7021920

>>7021850
/sci/ once again denies top down analysis in neuroscience; with a retarded argument.

Why does Harvard do these studies?
Why does Yale do these studies?
Why does Cal-tech do these studies?
Why does the Beijing Genomics Institute do these studies?

http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/
scholar.google.com

Proven IQ genes correlate with populations on ALFRED.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:57:57 2015 No.7021930

>>7021889

There are differences between psychotic illnesses and single psychotic episodes, and medicating with anti-psychotics is done on an individual basis.

>(I leave out anxiety because there isn't a working medication afaik)

Are you sure you're still talking about psychosis and anti-psychotics?

>They don't medicate people for being eccentric nowadays do they?

This depends on the eccentricity and your opinion of psychiatry. It's been demonstrated that an otherwise normal person simply seeing a psychiatrist instantly increases their chances of being diagnosed with a disorder. This is because all diagnosis are done based on a subjective assessment, and most professionals are using a checklist of symptoms. Some of these symptoms are subjective and open to interpretation both by the patient and psychiatrist, and there are a lot of diagnosis with a lot of symptoms on their checklists. It's incredibly easy to receive a diagnosis and prescription, though it's less likely for you to receive anti-psychotics unless something is going on with you. Mind you, I'm not talking about all diagnosis and all medications, not just psychotic episodes and anti-psychotics.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 15:59:41 2015 No.7021934

>>7021920

You haven't replied to any of the points in my post. I get the impression from this that you didn't actually read my post, or that you haven't the knowledge to have a real discussion on the topic. Please refrain from quoting my posts if you're going to rant with no consideration of the content you quoted. Thanks.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:00:34 2015 No.7022071

>>7021934
It's a dumb argument.

If top down analysis showed neural correlates to doing well on Jeopardy then there are neural correlates to doing well on Jeopardy. You specifically choose Jeopardy to try to make top down analysis seem ridiculous even though it's a highly vetted scientific methodology. Find me a study where someone actually does this and we can talk. You are attempting to force me to defend a strawman. I will not defend a strawman.

The fact that these institutions use IQ as the measure when they're looking for these genes shows that people actually doing the science think it's a valid measure when looking for these genes. When you look at the criticism of these studies no one says anything about IQ being invalid as a proxy for intelligence. The fact that you feel that it is demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/
scholar.google.com

Proven IQ genes correlate with populations on ALFRED.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:11:37 2015 No.7022089

>>7022071

Why are you ranting about genes in response to my post? Can you actually explain that?

On the off topic rant you're going on, I'll say you're excluding a whole lot of science and studies and acting as if IQ is their method rather than a supportive tool. By this same logic of yours, Jeapardy should be able to measure genetic composition? It's foolish.

You have a biased interest in placing importance on IQ while sidelining the rest of the science. You're a political poster with a rhetorical agenda in this thread, not a scientifically interested one.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:25:08 2015 No.7022104

>>7022089
Not that guy but you are doing a pretty terrible job at arguing that IQ is "vague" and "controversial" within the scientific community. It's a test that has been going on for a hundred years yielding good results and correlating quite well with the type of intelligence it's supposed to measure. You can make all the retarded analogies you want with jeopardy but when there has been strong correlations for so many time with very few problems you must admit something is right there. Is the fact that most genius scientists from the last century performed well in IQ tests a pure coincidence?

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:50:07 2015 No.7022151

>>7022104
>Not that guy but you are doing a pretty terrible job at arguing that IQ is "vague" and "controversial" within the scientific community.

I never said it was controversial to use IQ as scientists do. I did say it was vague, and I nuanced that statement, because it is. It's a vague statistically supportive tool. This is how it's used. You're letting that poster confuse you, since he's essentially running around putting words in people's mouths.

And actually, I didn't quote him to begin with. He's replying to anyone and ranting unrelated nonsense.

>You can make all the retarded analogies you want

It's not a retarded analogy though. Even that poster admits you could correlate a Jeopardy Quotient with neurological deficiencies. My analogy illustrates quite rightfully the extent of IQ usefulness and how both you and him are overblowing what IQ findings actually tell us, as well as ignoring its shortfalls.

> Is the fact that most genius scientists from the last century performed well in IQ tests a pure coincidence?

No more a coincidence than the fact they could have done well watching a game of Jeopardy. The Jeopardy Quotient would have correlated, and apparently that's all the proof you need that it's universally useful and not vague at all, yes?

I honestly don't think either of you are capable of evolving this discussion of IQ past a point where my newly invented Jeopardy Quotient can't qualify under everything you say. I propose that there's a statistically significant correlation between a high Jeopardy Quotient and both neurological deficiencies and genius level intelligences. Now, I'm not the one saying IQ or the Jeopardy Quotient can diagnose less than extreme deficiencies on their own, because I understand how ridiculous that claim is, but you apparently think otherwise... against all evidence which says they're only useful as vague measures or statistical tools.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:53:27 2015 No.7022161

>>7022089
That is a gross misrepresentation of my argument.
I say "IQ genes" for the purpose of salience.
"IQ genes" that is genes shown to relate to IQ via top down analysis are strongly associated with cortex volume, brain size, neural plasticity, size of various lobes, acetylcholine, gaba, dopamine, and serotonin response, reuptake, release, and production. I could double the text limit with examples in the this section.

Now when you look up these genes on ALFRED they correlate with populations.
It is a proven fact that differences in neural function will result in different cognition; bullshitting about Jeopardy is not a refutation of my argument.

The reason this is on topic is because I claim that people call psychology pseudoscience is because psychology finds things that people, including psychologists, don't want to admit are true. You are a perfect example of this phenomenon; you are currently bull shitting about how a Jeopardy Quotient you just made up off the top of your head is somehow equivalent to IQ which is proven methodology; and is somehow a refutation of top down analysis in neuroscience.

People talk shit on the Asch experiment because because they don't want to admit that they are susceptible to peer pressure.
People talk shit on the Milgram experiment because they don't want to admit that they might kill people under orders.
People talk shit on IQ because they scored low and are buthurt; instead of just doing some research and learning that self control is more related to success than IQ.
People talk shit on the concept of IQ genes because if we can correlate them with populations it "destroys" their world view of "everyone is the same."

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 17:59:47 2015 No.7022180

>>7022151
>It's not a retarded analogy though. Even that poster admits you could correlate a Jeopardy Quotient with neurological deficiencies.
No I didn't
>>7022071
I said
>If top down analysis showed neural correlates to doing well on Jeopardy then there are neural correlates to doing well on Jeopardy.
Now show me the study where they do this. The fact that there isn't one, shows that it's a shitty measure

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:04:33 2015 No.7022192

>>7022161

Nothing you're saying defies my description of IQ. You aren't going to be able to reliably define cortex volume by someone's IQ, because that's not how the data you're referring to works. It's too vague for that.

I don't know that you understand how they're using IQ. You seem to think they're giving someone an IQ test, reading 95, and determining these things about the person. This is incorrect.

>It is a proven fact that differences in neural function will result in different cognition; bullshitting about Jeopardy is not a refutation of my argument.

Differences in neural function will make for a worse Jeapardy player. My Jeapardy Quotient remains in tact. It's important for you to think about this, because it will allow you to detach from your obviously preconceived notions of how IQ is used.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:05:48 2015 No.7022194 >>7015287 >The Stanford Prison Experiment But that produced no useful data, it's anecdotal. Not least because the guy overseeing the experiment directly interfered with the process.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:05:48 2015 No.7022195 >>7022180 Are you saying you don't believe neural deficiencies would lead to a lower Jeopardy Quotient? If so, then why does IQ correlate but Jeapardy Quotient would not? Explain your reasoning exactly.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:07:04 2015 No.7022201

>>7022180

Also please reply to my entire post, not just a snippet while you strawman. I want real replies since you're the one who quoted me and tried shoving words in my mouth to begin with. If we're going to talk about IQ, then you're going to pull your pants up and be an intellectually honest man about it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:13:36 2015 No.7022222

>>7022192
>I don't know that you understand how they're using IQ. You seem to think they're giving someone an IQ test, reading 95, and determining these things about the person.
Nope. They test IQ and then measure these things, finding that people with low IQs have these qualities and have certain alleles which are also shown to be related to these things.

IQ is associated with these neural features.
IQ is associated with these alleles.
These alleles are associated with these neural features.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I think they use IQ to determine cortex size; but misrepresenting my argument over and over again just makes you look stupid.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 18:20:50 2015 No.7022237

>>7022195
Yes, a person neural deficiencies would do worse on your Jeopardy Quotient, but your Jeopardy Quotient is just a measure of a person's ability to memorize obscure facts whereas IQ is a measure of intelligence on factors like spatial, verbal and mathematical reasoning.
>>7022201
so quoting you is shoving words in your mouth?
>>7022222
Quints don't lie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:31:28 2015 No.7022452 >>7021797 >>7022161 >>7022222 /thread

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 20:35:50 2015 No.7022462

>>7022237
>Yes, a person neural deficiencies would do worse on your Jeopardy Quotient,

So the correlation is there for neurological deficiencies just like IQ? But wait, you were acting like IQ is a standalone solution to everything because of this. Is JQ also that spectacular and universally infallible?

> but your Jeopardy Quotient is just a measure of a person's ability to memorize obscure facts

Actually response time, ability to phrase in a question, remembering and recalling a wide range of information, interpretation of the category pattern, assessing incomplete information and making judgement calls, and picking up hints from the question are all needed for optimal Jeopardy Quotient scores. I could go on about what else it requires, such as risk vs reward skills, but I think this will do for now.

What's clear is though you're downplaying JQ out of an apparent personal bias due to your inability to argue against it or contrast its benefits with IQ, Intelligence Quotient can be improved with learning just as Jeopardy Quotient can.

>>7022237
>so quoting you is shoving words in your mouth?

Ironically, you've just shoved words in my mouth again by claiming I was talking about quoting. I actually posted what you were falsely attributing to my posts, but you're doing it again right here. I'm sorry, but what's your IQ? I'm picking up on some possible neurological deficiencies and want to check your IQ's correlation for the sake of science.

Anonymous Tue Jan 20 21:07:30 2015 No.7022509

>>7022462
>So the correlation is there for neurological deficiencies just like IQ? But wait, you were acting like IQ is a standalone solution to everything because of this. Is JQ also that spectacular and universally infallible?
Nope never acted like that. IQ just has tonnes of studies showing that it's a valid and reliable predictor.
>Actually response time, ability to phrase in a question, remembering and recalling a wide range of information, interpretation of the category pattern, assessing incomplete information and making judgement calls .... but I think this will do for now.
Ok, go do a study and demonstrate how predictable JQ is. I'm not really downplaying JQ because I've already said that if JQ has neural correlates JQ has neural correlates. If JQ is predictive JQ is predictive. You just don't have any evidence that it is. Whereas IQ has this evidence. JQ would probably be rather predictive given that QuizBowl is a thing.
>Ironically, you've just shoved words in my mouth again by claiming I was talking about quoting. I actually posted what you were falsely attributing to my posts, but you're doing it again right here. I'm sorry, but what's your IQ? I'm picking up on some possible neurological deficiencies and want to check your IQ's correlation for the sake of science.
You're the one claiming I said they use IQ to test for cortex size anon. All I'm doing is quoting you and you claim I'm shoving words in your mouth. Unless there are multiple anons on this JQ tip. (which would be depressing) But this is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about.
If you really want to know my IQ I've only had one full panel from a psychologist where I scored 160 with high spikes in Mathematical and Spatial reasoning and lower in Verbal.
On online tests I usually score between 125 and 160.

Also you're talking to multiple anons anon; try to pay attention.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:04:34 2015 No.7022772

>>7010896
Late to this game but want to respond: "Psychology" at the level of real research is actually multiple distinct fields, all of which are VERY different in their methods and what they study.

Experimental (Cognitive) psychology is very formal and rigorous. They measure things like reaction times and test hypotheses about perception, decision-making, and memory using quantitative methods.

At probably the opposite extreme is social psychology, which still does "experimental" research but relies a lot on qualitative observation and surveys.

In between these extremes, there is personality psychology, developmental psychology, clinical psychology... all of these use different methods, and some are much more "sciencey" (in the "hard science" sense) than others.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:34:17 2015 No.7022812 >>7021749 Then why does IQ try to quantize it to a single number are you saying the very premise of IQ testing is fundamentally flawed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 00:36:57 2015 No.7022816 >>7021773 Psychology has been around since the ancient greeks, if physical knowledge of the human mind has not progressed beyond infancy since before the invention of electricity, maybe that is because the human mind is as legitimate as the human soul.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 04:31:58 2015 No.7022985 >>7021889 Anxiety is not psychosis but there are meds for it like clonidine or benzodiazepines like ativan or xanax.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 12:53:00 2015 No.7023396

>>7022812

what I was searching to say is that the mathematical formula behind the IQ scores, are just "flawed", cause there are many possibilities that also a low-very low IQ scored man can become a productive person for his/her society.

> I do not believe there's a chance to believe in the IQ score system, because that number indicate only an estimation, not a fact.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 13:00:02 2015 No.7023401

>>7022104

> Is the fact that most genius scientists from the last century performed well in IQ tests a pure coincidence?

yep, but did you even thought of normal people, who work regularly as bus driver i.e. or just sellers, that can have some +1 score to their IQs? I'm not the same anon you were talking.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 14:22:31 2015 No.7023489
File: 197 KB, 512x921, iqbyjob.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7023401
cause there are many possibilities that also a low-very low IQ scored man can become a productive person for his/her society.
yes
>>7023396
>did you even thought of normal people, who work regularly as bus driver i.e. or just sellers, that can have some +1 score to their IQs?
yes

But pic related is repeated over and over again.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 15:36:32 2015 No.7023632

>>7023489

sauce? When I said "many possibilities", I was meaning at least one hundred. Somebody can always fake their score for their own reason, or just do not be ready to take the test, or just not having slept well the night before, or have drunk too much, just to put it, but this list can be extended with many other reasons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 15:38:15 2015 No.7023635 >>7023632 if there's not any evidence demonstrable by any scientific method of the reality of an IQ score, empirical methods are always flawed.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 15:52:32 2015 No.7023661

I would highly recommend people on /sci/ who don't think psychology is a science go read The Journal of Experimental Psychology, Psychophysics, etc. You people are insane if you think there isn't real science being done in psychology. Most people aren't just handing out surveys you dumb fucks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 16:03:44 2015 No.7023678 >>7023661 can you explain in details what this book want to tell to the world, anonfuck?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 16:04:41 2015 No.7023681 >>7023632 http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 16:17:15 2015 No.7023701

>>7023681

> Working memory (WM) is the system responsible for maintaining,
in an accessible state, the subset of information that is needed
to perform a given cognitive task. The capacity of WM is limited

> The causes of the capacity limit are an issue of current debate. Some
researchers have argued that it reflects a fixed number of discrete “slots”
(Cowan, 2010; Luck & Vogel, 1997); others attribute it to etc.

{Strengthening also reduces the set size effect in
retro-cue trials, because when the cued item is the strongest among
all memory competitors, their number becomes less important.
According to this assumption,}

debating and assumptions doesn't fit with a demonstrable scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:45:54 2015 No.7023935 >>7010962 Phys 101 at my school was 90% full of ugly men. Now what the fuck does that tell you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:48:27 2015 No.7023938 >>7011475 Anthropology is fucking retarded 80% of the time.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 19:59:07 2015 No.7023955
File: 95 KB, 684x933, IQGaDS8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sci/ likes to say that the soft sciences aren't rigorous but they are a lot more rigorous than 99% of the arguments I see on /sci/.

You would think that for a forum that commonly argues IQ, race "realism," climate denial, etc. wouldn't suddenly care so much about rigor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 20:08:54 2015 No.7023967 >>7023955 >/sci/ likes to say that the soft sciences aren't rigorous but they are a lot more rigorous than 99% of the arguments I see on /sci/. No shit. They're comparing it to fields of science, not anonymous imageboards.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:09:30 2015 No.7024048

>>7023967

The point is that /sci/, in threads like these, doesn't actually give the slightest fuck about rigor or method. /sci/ just likes to pick and choose what science is convenient to feel superior.

You'll notice that /sci/ suddenly happens to be a lot softer on the soft sciences when IQ or biotruths are being thrown around.

There aren't fields of science behind race realism or climate denial, but that doesn't seem to bother /sci/.

Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:12:33 2015 No.7024052

>>7024048
>psychology is a pseudoscience, enjoy never accomplishing anything because of your shit degree
>IQ is real, enjoy never accomplishing anything because of your low iq

now you realize that 4chan is just full of trolls who pray on peoples' insecurities and try to make them feel bad, lel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:15:37 2015 No.7024056 >>7010896 because you can't normally test it with a giant-ass machine

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 21 21:46:53 2015 No.7024091 because psychology is all theory

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 00:45:36 2015 No.7024347 >>7024056 So it is not objective fact, but subjective opinion?

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 06:48:27 2015 No.7024633
File: 417 KB, 1000x1000, 52343223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7024048

let's talk about lobotomy, electroconvulsive therapy and frenology, implying that white men are on the high human scale and the negroids are on the lower human scale, /psy/ anons. And just don't get flawed by potheads.

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 06:54:18 2015 No.7024638 [DELETED]

File: 19 KB, 280x230, 6343432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7024052

if anybody here fells butthurt because psychology is a pseudo-science as psychiatry, and do you know to be on the average IQ scale, get a job in the porn industry, as these people are doing. The reason is that you're just pussy-whiped pseudo-scientific researcher, kiddos.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 06:59:19 2015 No.7024640 >>7010902 You are so wrong it's painful. Please educate yourself before posting.

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 07:02:12 2015 No.7024642

>mfw people posting about psychology that clearly are not in the know
>mfw I study it
>mfw 70% sexy women in degree
>mfw having sex with hot bitches while getting a degree on the side
>mfw enjoy both the scientific and the more humanistic side of psychology, so arguments against whether psychology is a real science or not don't bother me
>mfw I have no face

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 08:22:33 2015 No.7024724 >>7010896 Psychologists arent better parents, teachers or politicians. This says a lot about how much we know about human behaviour. I think the refresh rate for 50% of the 'knowledge' in the field of psychology is around 5 years.

>>	N Thu Jan 22 08:59:28 2015 No.7024757 >>7024724 They provide useful assistance in advertising though don't they?

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 12:26:52 2015 No.7025044

>>7022161
>People talk shit on the Asch experiment because because they don't want to admit that they are susceptible to peer pressure.
>People talk shit on the Milgram experiment because they don't want to admit that they might kill people under orders.
>People talk shit on IQ because they scored low and are buthurt; instead of just doing some research and learning that self control is more related to success than IQ.
>People talk shit on the concept of IQ genes because if we can correlate them with populations it "destroys" their world view of "everyone is the same."
I buy it/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 12:40:34 2015 No.7025073 >>7025044 Yeah

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 13:40:48 2015 No.7025173

>>7022161

>People talk shit on the Asch experiment because because they don't want to admit that they are susceptible to peer pressure.
>People talk shit on the Milgram experiment because they don't want to admit that they might kill people under orders.
>People talk shit on IQ because they scored low and are buthurt; instead of just doing some research and learning that self control is more related to success than IQ.
>People talk shit on the concept of IQ genes because if we can correlate them with populations it "destroys" their world view of "everyone is the same."

Cognitive Science is a different beast than Behavior Psychology, it's pretty much accepted by the majority that peer pressure and appeal to authority is a real thing.

But with cognitive science it's different because even within the field of psychology itself there's conflict on the general analysis on the matter, you have psychologists who are in favor of IQ then you have psychologists who are in favor of Multiple intelligences and then you have psychologists who bring up Imprinting and epigenetics which poke holes in both IQ and Multiple Intelligences arguments. There's no real consensus on the matter and even when there's a semblance of consensus on the matter we still have to remember that through the guise of statistics it is open to constant change because of continuous population dynamics in terms of gene frequencies influenced by outside forces.

Also that world view of "everyone is the same" you talk about is simply a ideology made to act as a slate for the ability of individuals to be treated with equal respect and a chance to receive opportunities. But we already know from the past and present it doesn't quite work out that way but it's still a good state of mind to be in because as an individual it generally works to your benefit and doesn't make you look like an ass when your assumptions don't match an expected result in society because of the random variables always at play.

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 15:06:07 2015 No.7025309

>>7025173
>Cognitive Science is a different beast than Behavior Psychology, it's pretty much accepted by the majority that peer pressure and appeal to authority is a real thing.
Can you clarify that statement? Both psychology an cognitive science confirm the Asch experiment, it's just idiots on the internet who don't

>you have psychologists who are in favor of IQ then you have psychologists who are in favor of Multiple intelligences and
Yes, but everyone understands that they're all just models for something that is even more complex than either model. A comprehensive model of intelligence will contain parts of both as well as additional features.

>then you have psychologists who bring up Imprinting and epigenetics which poke holes in both IQ and Multiple Intelligences arguments.
I hope you're not implying allele frequency is affected by epigenetics. What epigenetic factors have been shown to produce changes in IQ to what degree?

>semblance of consensus on the matter we still have to remember that through the guise of statistics it is open to constant change because of continuous population dynamics in terms of gene frequencies influenced by outside forces.
It seems like you're trying to answer multiple posts at the same time in one post that's linked to the previous one. There is a lot going on as far as population dynamics are concerned, what outside forces are you referring to?

>Also that world view of "everyone is the same" ... assumptions don't match an expected result in society because of the random variables always at play.
The problem comes from applying an individual model to a population. NDT, Thomas Sowell, etc etc have an IQ of at least 140. African Americans in general have an IQ 80-85. Policy decisions are made from the perspective that African Americans have an IQ 100.

Psychology is called psuedoscience because there are very logical conclusions we don't want to come to.

Anonymous Thu Jan 22 15:07:21 2015 No.7025313

>>7025173
>Cognitive Science is a different beast than Behavior Psychology, it's pretty much accepted by the majority that peer pressure and appeal to authority is a real thing.
Can you clarify that statement? Both psychology an cognitive science confirm the Asch experiment, it's just idiots on the internet who don't

>you have psychologists who are in favor of IQ then you have psychologists who are in favor of Multiple intelligences and
Yes, but everyone understands that they're all just models for something that is even more complex than either model. A comprehensive model of intelligence will contain parts of both as well as additional features.

>then you have psychologists who bring up Imprinting and epigenetics which poke holes in both IQ and Multiple Intelligences arguments.
I hope you're not implying allele frequency is affected by epigenetics. What epigenetic factors have been shown to produce changes in IQ to what degree?

>semblance of consensus on the matter we still have to remember that through the guise of statistics it is open to constant change because of continuous population dynamics in terms of gene frequencies influenced by outside forces.
It seems like you're trying to answer multiple posts at the same time in one post that's linked to the previous one. There is a lot going on as far as population dynamics are concerned, what outside forces are you referring to?

>Also that world view of "everyone is the same" ... assumptions don't match an expected result in society because of the random variables always at play.
The problem comes from applying an individual model to a population. NDT, Thomas Sowell, etc etc have an IQ of at least 140. African Americans in general have an IQ 80-85. Policy decisions are made as if African Americans have an IQ 100. This is a problem.

Psychology is called psuedoscience because there are very logical conclusions we don't want to admit to/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 22 21:05:28 2015 No.7025731 >>7024724 This is a situation where a citation is sorely needed. I have a hard time believing a behavioral psychologist isn't a better teacher/parent than the general population.

Anonymous Fri Jan 23 02:09:52 2015 No.7026085

>>7025309

>Can you clarify that statement? Both psychology an cognitive science confirm the Asch experiment, it's just idiots on the internet who don't

Behavior Psychology investigates and measures actions that have visibly already been demonstrated and written about in the past. The majority accept it because they witness it all the time, adults influencing impressionable teens, military and political leaders influencing their party through inspiration or fear of future consequences.

Cognitive science is different in that there's not readily apparent direct evidence just indirect trace evidence. When it comes to intelligence we assess a person's intelligence not through direct measure but through comparative measure. IQ for example isn't asking how smart you, yourself really are but how well you did compared to "x" amount people.

As a measurement it provides little to no insight on ones personal intelligence. It is in fact really more akin to a cruel joke being played on everyone because there's no way to satisfy one's curiosity on IQ measurement and yet it's supposed to be taken seriously.

>I hope you're not implying allele frequency is affected by epigenetics. What epigenetic factors have been shown to produce changes in IQ to what degree?

In a crude simplification if epigenetics show changes in gene expression and gene expression itself is about what/how often traits get expressed, then any given variability in a persons behavior could influence possible responses in any given environment. And through those responses from the environment could direct a selection in possible mating choices. Choices that could determine the outcome for their child's IQ.

Of course it's more complicated than that so for more info you can read the links on the process and other examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics

http://episona.com/3-examples-transgenerational-epigenetic-inheritance/

http://www.genetics.org/content/182/3/845.full

Anonymous Fri Jan 23 02:12:06 2015 No.7026089

continued from >>7026085

>>7025309

>There is a lot going on as far as population dynamics are concerned, what outside forces are you referring to?

I'm referring to climate, disease, diet, social movements and war. All have an effect on gene frequencies within any given population. Migrations from one region to another due to climate or social policies. Reduction of old genes and/or introduction of new genes in population by disease or war. Then there's diet which effects the growth of both the body/brain when there's a nutrition deficit or surplus and the effects itself can be passed on to offspring.

>The problem comes from applying an individual model to a population. NDT, Thomas Sowell, etc etc have an IQ of at least 140. African Americans in general have an IQ 80-85. Policy decisions are made as if African Americans have an IQ 100. This is a problem.

You say that as if the same situation isn't happening with Whites in America. You have whites up at the top both in government and business with IQ's exceeding 140 designing policies and laws or making deals that effect the social climate for the average white person that barely eek through the IQ of 100. Everyone on average is getting a raw deal there's not much point trying to single out african americans. Yeah they seem to get it more than whites but then they're also not the majority of the american population so they fit into the norm of minority populations getting the short end of the stick like in other nations. Hell even some sub-populations of whites have experience this in the past when it came to the irish immigrants during the potato famine and okies during the dust bowl.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 23 02:44:45 2015 No.7026120 >>7010896 because of vague definitions

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 23 04:42:59 2015 No.7026221 >>7026120 Its not necessarily vague, psychometrics are just purely semantic while metrics that can be methodically characterized by science need to be consistent objective physical measurements.

Anonymous Sat Jan 24 00:10:51 2015 No.7027445

>>7010952
I would agree.

The saving grace of psychology is statistical analysis and the use of control groups; any study without those as a forefront in the study is pseudoscience for the most part. If the findings can be presented in a logical, mathematically sound proof, then it's legit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 24 00:48:35 2015 No.7027464 Psychology is a pseudoscience because of the hard problem and that of other minds.

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