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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 600x513, Psychology..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7374876 No.7374876 [Reply] [Original]

What is /sci/ opinion on psychology?

>> No.7374885

>>7374876
>Unleash the trolls!

>> No.7374900

>>7374876
The field does a poor job of policing itself, and it's way too easy for someone to spout reasonable-sounding-yet-wrong bullshit.

>> No.7374907

>>7374876
The people on /sci/ who are vocal about psychology tend to think it lacks rigour, and is not a "real science".

My opinion is that /sci/ is mostly physicists, engineers and mathematicians whose knowledge if psychology is pop-sci tier.

I am not a psychologist, nor do I study psychology

>> No.7374919

psychology is a legit field of study, though it is given a bad name at the undergraduate level by the people who major in it whilst not doing anything after undergad related to it or being particularly intelligent/more than average.

>> No.7374921
File: 66 KB, 741x643, iq-by-college-major-gender.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7374921

>>7374876
Pic related says all you really need to know about psychology.

>> No.7374940

0/10

>> No.7374950

>>7374876
>psychology
>science

wrong board

>> No.7374951

>>7374921
IQ? Using psychometric test to subestimate psychology studies.

>> No.7374954
File: 25 KB, 400x400, irony..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7374954

>>7374951
>>7374921

>> No.7374964

>>7374876

wasted money and effort which should be going towards neuroscience

>> No.7374992

>>7374964
According to you, whats the diference between psychology and neuroscience?

>> No.7375007

>>7374921
/sci/ shits on astronomy too yet it's the highest IQ major.

>> No.7375010

>>7374964
>implying neuroscience and psychology aren't slowly becoming the same field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology

>> No.7375012

>>7375007
You don't actually know that since it's grouped together with physics, which could be bringing its average up considerably. Though, that would mean physics has even higher IQ students than shown.

>> No.7375156

>>7374921
It involves talking to girls?

>> No.7375304

>>7374876
psychologist here:
has tried to borrow methods from real science in a pathetic attempt to look good
make fucking atrocious claims about human beigns ingoring sociological, antropological and philosophical background
invented psychometry trying to put the already dead positivist to measure thing they cannot explain nor comprehend
let bullshit hits them in all fronts, let coaching, mentoring and shit infiltrates and destroys the remanents of sanity
psychology is a masturbatory act, made by clowns to receive approval from other clowns
psychology is fucking garbage

>> No.7375312

>>7374992
>psycology= behavior and the study of psych
>neuroscience= the scientific study of the nervous system and it's various micro/macro molecular characteristics.

psych is a macro view, neuroscience is a micro view.

psych is nothing more than trying to use statistics to somehow bridge the gap between correlation and causality; get the fuck out for trying to make them seem the same.

>> No.7375321

>>7375312
So there's no point in studying something unless it's molecular, or behavior has no molecular basis? I'm not him, but curious what you're so adamantly confused about.

>> No.7376703

>>7375312
Would you consider psychiatry to be more closely related to psych or neuroscience?

>> No.7376706

>>7374907
/sci/ is pretty much all engineers

>> No.7376710

>>7374921
This is undergraduate level, right?

>> No.7376711

Behavioural psychology is pretty /sci/ isn't it?

>> No.7376984

>>7376703
There are different approaches to psychiatry. Nowadays, it typically just means someone who's studied medicine and specialized in drugs that (in a nutshell) modify brain chemicals. I.e., they are allowed to prescribe meds. But many psychiatrists (and its historical role), is something like what you may think of when conjuring images of Freud, or Tony Soprano going to his pysch (talking to an expert to suss out traumatic events and determine the importance of them, how to overcome them, etc. etc -- with or without drugs).

>>7376711
I'm not sure what "pretty /sci/" is supposed to mean exactly, but even within behavioural psych, there are those who take more determinist views (we're all just brain chemistry) and those who take more humanist/free-will inspired developmental views (we're all just a result of our experiences in our formative years!)

>> No.7377012

>tell me how you feel and i'll give you drugs based on your description
is ridiculous when it's 2015 and we can look at a persons brain and see the problem directly

over 50 years of modern psychiatry and we're still diagnosing people based on verbal description rather than looking at what's physically wrong

>> No.7377018

>>7374921
that IQ levels are laughably inflated across the board?

>> No.7377031

>>7377012
It isn't always about what's physically wrong, and talking to patients is a valuable way to suss out what's going on in their minds, not only their brains. Medicine isn't just about doling out pills.

>> No.7377070

>>7376984
>"pretty /sci/"
I meant scientifically rigorous. I mean Pavlov won a Nobel for his work but i never looked deep into it

>> No.7377165

>>7377070
Well, a lot of the bullshit BAs do is fluff, or just reviewing important key/historical case studies, but at the PhD or post-doc levels, yes, there is real science involved for those with the talent and perseverance.

I'd say the problem is more that there are way too many people taking psychology, and way too many schools are happy to take the cash of gullible under-par students, but aren't really that serious or vigorous regarding psychology as a science (which it is). This obviously results in bloat and poor representation. That's not really the field's fault though.

I teach in a university (linguistics), and get a fair few psych students. Some are brilliant, many are meh, though I get the impression a lot are there because they really didn't know what else to take. I sometimes feel like I know more than them (to be fair, often first-years), and I've never studied psych.

>> No.7377287

>>7376984
>we're all just a result of our experiences in our formative years
How is that not deterministic?

>> No.7377290

>>7377018
Averaged to 100*

>> No.7377293

>>7377287
It is. He's crazy.

>> No.7377347

>>7377018
Don't forget that most people on the chart fall to the lower right since most are female and most don't study STEM. Then take into account that most people don't even fall in the chart because they aren't in college. Plus it doesn't specify whether those are graduates or not. Them being graduates would also raise the IQ most likely.

>> No.7377793

>>7377287
It's much less deterministic than 'we're all just brain chemistry', as (within the discipline) it's only used to explain the origin of certain neuroses, and isn't presumed to be concrete and absolute. I.e. with therapy or perhaps meds, you can still change. It might have been better to leave out 'in our formative years' to get the idea (your experiences last year/week/whatever can also influence you). There are many diverging and often competing schools of thought.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just telling you the basic approaches.

>> No.7378143

>>7375312
Psychology is to Newtonian physics as neuroscience is to quantum physics.

What the hell is the point of considering them separate? Both study the same thing you're just being a little bitch about muh definitions