[ 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: 4 KB, 250x250, 1501205995836.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9820547 No.9820547 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone explain to me why psychology isn't a hard science? Wasn't Freud trying to make it as analytical as possible? Is this different direction it went in after the mid 20th century caused by the hippies and new-agers?

>> No.9820562

>>9820547
>hello Herr Doktor, I have recently been dreaming about ____
>Ayy lmao, I guess you still haven't gotten over the fact that you wanna shag your mom, eh?

whether you read freud or jung, you'll realize it's basically fucking alchemy

that's why I'm so skeptical about peterson, because he keeps citing jung.

>> No.9820573

>>9820562
>Peterson
He's not even close to being a respectable academic.

>> No.9820586

>>9820573
and the damn commies are?

>> No.9820590

>>9820547
You can't examine a mind (and compare them) truly "scientifically" since you can only have access to the descriptions from people of what they claimed to have experienced, unless you want to totally ignore lived experience. This sort of "science" will always be on par with studying the rise and fall of societies (Spengler, Marx, etc).

All the big theories are essiently unfalsifiable, they may have some degree of explanatory power for what's appears to be a real phenomena but once you embrace one everything will make perfect sense within that framework because you're fitting the facts to the theory.

>> No.9820592

>>9820573
He’s a conservative flavored self help book. Which should make him irrelevant but compared to what we’re used to from the right these days he actually sounds wise.

>> No.9820615

>>9820547
Hard as in difficult? Yes. Hard as in objective? That's a long ass post, my dude. >>9820590 is a pretty good simplification of the problem. He probably assumes that you realize that empirical facts and conclusions can be generated, hence the concentration on statistical methods. Over-reaching theory though? Humanity doesn't even have a solid theory of mind yet...

>> No.9820716

>>9820547
>Can someone explain to me why psychology isn't a hard science
Because it does not have predictive value.

>> No.9820733

>>9820547
>9820547
>>9820547
>freud analytical
please, please, please, please have you read his pages on ties and various clothing as manifestations of penises? a lot of what he spews is pure conjecture. It is like wordplay analysis. You can see a lot of connections fto form unfalsifable statements about something which is not valuable information without resorting to some esoteric "knowing"

>> No.9820742

>>9820716
>Because it does not have predictive value.
Take a real close look at Jung. It does have some predictive value, and not of the dream mumbo jumbo kind. There's a concept called enantiodromia, not sure how it translates to English though, that is really worth it looking into.

Jung and the Gestalt Theorists are the ones worth looking at. Also, throwing science aside, Wilhelm Reich is really good for understanding people's behavior.

>> No.9820774

>>9820562
>>9820742
Why are most of the people who name psychologists naming a bunch of people associated with exploded theory? None of these people have been relevant to psychology in ages. Read some scientific papers, anon's. Geez.

>> No.9820775

>>9820547
you cannot reliably reproduce experiments

>> No.9820778

>>9820547
>Wasn't Freud trying to make it as analytical as possible?
he didn't used statistics.
as you know everything is science if you can measure statistics

>> No.9820787
File: 120 KB, 4000x4000, question??.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9820787

>>9820547
>Can someone explain to me why psychology isn't a hard science?
psychology is inductive, it can never be deductive, it has very little predictive value, any experiments are unable to be reliable replicated over large sample sets, and half of it is all about penises.
perhaps you could explain why you think it SHOULD be a hard science, and we can refute your points.

>> No.9820841

What's the difference between psychology and quantum mechanics?

>> No.9820925

>>9820547
A hard science is one in which we already know most of the underlying principles and can express them mathematically, so the only open questions are engineering problems
A soft science, or just "science", is one where we don't even fully understand which questions we should ask, let alone their answers. We must rely on the ingenuity of the humman mind and strength of character to will into existence a scientific description of the unknown. Psychology is in this state, and it's a very exciting thing to be involved in.

>> No.9820934
File: 468 KB, 968x1286, freud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9820934

>> No.9820942

>>9820547
No you see every psychological phenomenon has a physical explanation behind it.
In order to treat these conditions you have to know whats changed in the brain.
For now the human brain is a black box on a physiological level,but we have it figured it out histologically and anatomically.
Fraud and the rest of his colleagues only wrote things basted on empirical evidence.
That is not enough.
It is one thing to know whats in front of your eyes and its another to understand how something got there.
Fraud is equivalent to charlatan that got media famous.

>> No.9821073

>>9820573
But isn't he actually an academic at a respectable institution? I think his book is dumb but if he's an accomplished academic in his field (psychology) and you're saying he's not a respectable academic, then doesn't that mean his field isn't respectable?

>> No.9821080

>>9820573
>He's not even close to being a respectable academic.
t. armchair psychologist

>> No.9821630

>>9820775
/thread

>> No.9821636

>>9820547
It's not a hard science because its development didn't naturally necessitate the use of advanced mathematical techniques.

>> No.9822854

>>9820547
>Can someone explain to me why psychology isn't a hard science?

that's classified.

>> No.9822860

>>9820547
>Wasn't Freud trying to make it as analytical as possible?
Yeah, he made some progress but still failed hard.

> Is this different direction it went in after the mid 20th century caused by the hippies and new-agers?
It's actually much more scientific than it was with Freud but still not hard science.

>> No.9822887

The whole realm of psychology is basically Jews projecting their neurosis and obsession with perversion onto everybody else and pathologising behaviours they didn't like.

>> No.9822902

>>9822887
they tryin a learn how to most efficiently shepherd sheep.

der herpy dorp.