/sci/ - Science & Math

how do i become a good student

what does he think the square root of 1 is? i?

>>6723340
>>6723249

Actual psychologist here. Tulpas are bullshit for pony-loving manchildren. Get a life. Or therapy.

>>6665452

Because over the day, with more activity, ATP accumulates in your body, which inhibits Orexin, which in turn prevents sleeping. At least according to the "flip-flop" model.

>>6564855

You clearly have never read even a single scientific psychology paper. Why you still feel the need to post in this thread with absolut certainty eludes me.

>>6564838

Depends on what you count in as "psychology". If your putting in Freud and NLP and the other non-evidence based garbage, then yes, it is bullshit.

If with "psychology" you mean peer-reviewed scientific investigation of scientific claims about human behavior, then I would say it's pretty valid. The reason that psychology can't make 100% sure predicitions is because the system it investigates implements way too many variables. In order to do any research at all you have to simplify the system, which comes at the cost of accuracy. I usually compare it to weather forecasting, because there you have the same problem.

>>6564829

I referred to the wrong post. Your mentioning of Freud was actually understandable. I meant to quote >>6564729

As to adressing your post: Freud's theories are pretty much NOT in line with what neuroscience, biology and even modern psychology has found. I won't deny that some of the stuff the earlier psychologists (if you can even call Freud a psychologist...) have found out has resurfaced in the light of modern psychology, but the initial framework and theories were mostly flawed.

But in general, I think I agree with most of your train of thought.

>>6564781

psychology is not about "trying to read and understand someone" at all. Psychology makes claims about GROUPS, not about individuals. That's why you're using statistics in the first place. I don't see any room for intuition here.

>>6564801

Can we please stop mentioning Freud in EACH AND EVERY psychology related thread? He has never done any scientific work in the field. On the contrary, he even objected the scientific testing of his claims.

>>6539235

I'm curious, in which setting where you tested? And by whom? In most cases, PCL-R is used in context of legal prognostics or predicting outcome and chances of psychotherapeutic interventions.

>>6539235

Yes, exactly for these reasons. I have not only heard about the PCL-R, I even have the formal training. I work in a clinic for forensic psychiatry as a psychologist. But even if someone scores above the cut-off, you wouldn't label him as a "psychopath", but a person with high psychopathy scores. The difference is subtle, but matters.

>>6539241

APD is not 100% congruent with whatever "psychopathy" resembles.

>>6536654

No. You're not. Psychopathy isn't even a clinical diagnosis. Stop watching Hannibal, edgemaster.

>>6517597

Aaaaand once again, a simple trip to the FUCKING WIKIPEDIA could have spared /sci/ an utterly stupid thread...

>>6488815

Don't know how this is /sci/ related.
Anyway, yes, a Master of Psychology Degree would be helpful/required.
I actually wrote my Bachelor Thesis on Facial Mimicry.
If you mean having an actual "agency" like Lightman has, there is one in Germany, so I guess it's possible.

>>6478353

It's bullshit. This is something that you could have found out using google and wikipedia in less than 5 minutes.

/apply yourself
/thread.

>>6351226

Are you really resorting to "i can prove that i cant prove something"? That's not the kind of claims that science is after. You are just making a claim about the quality of other claims (meta-claims). It's like I have to spoonfeed you everything.
If you "prove" that something is PROBABLE, what exactly have you said by that? Is it a PROOF for something or merely an estimate/claim of probability? Take your time, I know you have your difficulties with this.

It's hilarious how all you can come up with is basically "no u!"
Anyway, keep up the good work, my friend. I'm out.

>>6351135

But it never really verifies the claim. All that tests of significance do is testing if your results are PROBABLY not only produced by coincidence. Once again this is only a claim about PROBABILITY. Not PROOF. (I'm using capital letters now so that you can understand what I've been trying to tell you from the start)

Mindlessly repeating "psychology is bullshit" in every post instead of coming to the conclusion that your concept of psychology might be flawed does not make your claim true. It only makes you look like a dogmatic highschool kid who feels bad for "losing" an argument on the internet.

>>6351167
Nice picture. Added it to my collection, thanks. Also, I'm not OP, if that's what you were getting at.

>>6351076

Name me one instance of empirical work in psychology that actually verifies a claim.

The longer this goes on, the more I get the impression that you neither take your time to even comprehend what I wrote nor have the ability to.

If you test a claim under a 95% confidence interval you do NOT prove anything. Even the number 95% is a completely arbitrary convention.

>>6351054

"proving" is "verifying". Psychology only falsifies. Do standard error and confidence intervals mean anything to you?

>>6351024

Psychology does not want to "prove" things. It makes claims about probability. That's why psychology uses statistic. You seem to have some misconceptions about social sciences.

>>6351017

How do the flaws of sociology transfer to psychology?

>>6314732

I think you meant "perception", not cognition. Cognition is very broad.
Why would the process of perception be altered by simply knowing how it occurs? It's not something you can control voluntarly.

>>6269430

I have a scientific background in psychology. But I don't really understand your question or how it would apply to psychology alone.

Do you mean something along the lines of "psychology is useless, so why do we put effort in research?"... If so, psychology is not useless at all. Aside from pure theoretical research, there are teaching, clinical psychology and workplace psychology which are becoming increasingly relevant.
Also there are scientific questions that can't be answered without using psychology and psychological methods.

>>6269364

These are not domains of psychology but personality traits, established through factor analysis. However, they lack any theoretical background and are merely descriptive. There have been several other attempts at describing the human personality as a combination of a few more or less broad traits. The most famous models regarding this contain between 3 to 16 traits.

For more on personality traits, read up on Eysenck, Gray, Davidson, Guilford, Cattel etc...

>>6206507

>dredge up Freud's bones

my sides