ITT: Bad psychology and psychologists
Hard mode: No humanists/existentialists beliefs.
>>7931981
>ITT: psychology and psychologists
fixed
>>7932202
>implying psychology isn't a science
Pretty good post for a thread like this actually.
>>7932397
I took a p-values class and my field is entirely irreproducible, what is - is so general that I might as well say "people in general dont like being stabbed"
your typical workload consists of counseling women and men with too much time and money, a victorian era comforter
>>7932416
>your typical workload consists of counseling women and men with too much time and money, a victorian era comforter
>unironically thinking psychology is just about counseling
>unironically thinking psychology is not a science
Psychology has the potential to be science. If you have not read Feynmans view on psychology and the problems with it I suggest you do that.
ITT: Autists that only knows numbers talk shit about things they dont understand
>>7932816
They failed to realize this was a thread meant to make fun of bad psychologists like Jung or Rogers as opposed to spouting bad psychology themselves.
>>7932416
Counsellors just apply psychology for their trade
Psychology is a research field.
>>7931981
Most psychologists are bad psychologists.
Do I win?
>>7932816
We know enough to tell a reproducibility crisis when we see one:)
Sigmund freud
>>7931981
why is it that psychology is the most unemployable degree field?
>>7932988
And why are Rogers and Carl bad psychologists?
>>7933767
Its not the most. Its higher unemployment rates are due to the fact that it is one of the most popular college majors.
>>7934140
Both unscientific assumptions about human behavior and unscientific practices; in other words, a lot of his clinical practices are effectively placebo effect incarnate.
Jung's contributions to understanding human nature are immense. op you are the plebest pleb to ever post on sci.
what happened, did the cute psych TA reject you?
>>7934776
>and unscientific practices;
But they helped a lot of people with their treatments?
Shit tier pseudo-scientist """""""""""""""psychologists""""""""""""""": Freud, Jung, Lacan, Malher
>>7935144
You could also say that exorcists or witch doctors helped a lot of people in their treatments. It's nothing but placebo effect. None of their contributions stood the test of replicability.
Empirical psychology is scientific. Psychoanalysis is science and outright harmful.
Don't forget that because psychoanalysis is so popular in France, they use psychoanalytic "treatments" to treat children with autism, which they consider to be an "infantile psychotic disorder". As a result, children with autism are denied modern treatment, and are treated the psychanalytic way.
Like... wrapping autistic children in cold wet sheets to "reconnect their mind with their bodies" (toppest of kekks - but muh psychoanalysis is a science!!!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmw_z3KPCPw
>>7935180
samefag,
meant to say psychoanalysis is pseudo-science *
p much anything that isn't psychometrics
>>7934807
How so? A lot of his beliefs have similar problems to Freud in the sense that they are almost entirely unfalsfiable, which makes them unscientific in nature. Furthermore, concepts like his personality types (and the subsequent test someone made out of it) have been discredited.
>>7935180
Do people actually believe psychoanalytic nonsense is effective at treating autism over behavioral treatments? Or are these the types of people who think any form of control is spooky and that operant conditioning is bribery?
I was under the assumption that psychoanalysis was just something professors taught to give a historical perspective to psychology as opposed to something people unironically still believe.
>>7935452
You were under the correct assumption. There's a lot of failure to communicate on this topic. Psychology is technically a science. However, a vast majority of psychologists are not scientists, and most of the remaining ones aren't good ones. There's a large amount of undefined and interchangeable terminology and confirmation bias, and the experimental parameters are a lot harder to "control." You say this, and intro level psych studiers think "That can't be true" while people finishing up their bachelor's degree think "Yeah but that's just how it used to be. So that's what the intro classes are like and that's why you hear it so much from all those people who aren't informed like me" The big secret is that psychology is still at square one in terms of a definitive structure of the psyche as applies to everyone. We've elaborated the living hell out of square one, but make no mistake, we're still sitting on it. Think of psychology more as a vast collection of insights by people who love the notion of the scientific method, rather than a science.
>>7931981
can someone explain the psychology of non-psychologists discussing the scientific validity of psychology
>>7931981
>>/his/
>>7935164
your inability to comprehend the genius does not give you right to critique it. unless you are one of those people that think absence of proof = proof of absence
>>7937188
But without evidence, you can't really call any of their beliefs psychology since psychology by definition is supposed to be a science.
>>7937248
what are your credentials. age, education. dont lie
>>7937266
None of which are relevant to the scientific accuracy of Jungian/Freudian "psychology." Perhaps instead you can cite some research supporting their beliefs? Because things like id/ego/superego and archetypes are unfalsifiable; maybe you could show some evidence supporting Freud stages of development?
>>7932416
>can't distinguish between well established theories and potentially irreproducible (if which there are many unfortunately)
>thinks applied psychology is private counseling
You're a special kind of idiot.
>>7932438
>Listening to a 30 year old opinion of a field that has undergone two major revolutions since, making it the fastest growing discipline in science, just because he was a genius in a field you respect
Literally go kill yourself. How can someone be this ludicrously ignorant
>>7935180
Opinions of psychodynamics are a great way of seeing how just someone knows about psychology. You clearly know surprisingly little. The treatment has been empirically tested like a mother fucker on a shit ton of disorders, and like literally every other treatment, it's effective for certain ones and not for others. That's how that works. But yea, keep pointing to French pseudo-scientific practices to bash a treatment studied and altered for the better part of a century.
>>7935441
They are only unscientific if claimed with more certainty than what's due. They are explanatory models based on a great deal of evidence, and to that extent they serve as a perspective from which to go forward and test. You are right though that many haven't been tested well yet, and so it is yet to be confirmed. A shit ton of science, right down to physics, is like this.
>>7935604
It's similar to the "us them" mentality. A lot of people here desperately need validation for the fields they've chosen and desperately throw shit at each other. Psychology is an easy target because it's poorly understood even by well intentioned outsiders. /sci even bashes biology lol. There are still people who think physics and some chemistry are the only sciences, and everything else is at best philosophy.
>>7938944
You're a bumbling buffoon
http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/stem-discipline.aspx
>>7939044
There is a pretty big difference between something that can't be tested simply due to technological limitations but are still falsifiable and something that cannot be tested because it is unfalsifiable though: something that is unobservable/unmeasurable like an archetype or the collective unconscious. This is a problem with a lot of freudian/jungian theories.
Calling something a part of psychology implies it is scientific also.
>>7939034
A lot of the assumptions of the psychodynamic paradigm are unscientific in nature in the sense that they are unfalsifiable as well as being mentalistic in the sense that it assumes that behavior is due to some unobservable mental force as opposed to a persons environment, their ontogenetic history, and genetic endowment. I'm not convinced that someone could control people's behavior if they don't even have a scientific way to predict it.
>>7939020
Do people think psychology is only psychodynamics?
>>7935181
Freudian slip?
> psycucks
>>>/trash/
>>7939922
Scientific literacy is abysmal. Similar to pre renaissance where the entire planet was illiterate, we have the same thing happening now when it comes to scientific literature. 99% of people do not take the time and literally cannot understand it.
>>7939104
Of course you can control someone's behavior without having a scientific understanding of the mechanisms behind the therapy as long as you have controlled experiments that show that the therapy itself is successful.
>>7939104
I agree with the archetype bit though. Definitely a philosophical piece rather than scientific. But it's premature to claim that it's impossible to test.
>>7941622
The problem is is that psychoanalytic therapy is only effective with depression and anxiety disorders, and there is no way to tell whether or not the treatment was successful because of the actual treatment/assumptions of psychodynamics or if it was simply because of the "bond" between the therapist and client.
>>7941622
But you need to understand when the behavior is going to occur and under what circumstances; an example being you'd need to understand that showing someone a picture of a goblin will scare them if you want to scare them (just understanding what scares them in other words). If you assume that behavior is due to unconscious ego processes, you are going to have a hard time effectively controlling behavior.
>>7931981
>ctrl+f
>Jean Piaget
>0 results
Come on /sci/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw33CBsEmR4
>>7939028
Honest question, anon. What do you think those two major revolutions were? That's an awfully specific number.
>>7931981
Freud. Fucking Freud. He did more to set back modern psychology for 50 fucking years than anyone else of the period.
>>7939922
The popular perception of science leans towards the social sciences. It has a shit ton of baggage with philosophical and quasi-religious underpinings to concepts that some major "psychologists" of the past promoted and pushed for.
It's why so many people don't understand that at its root, psychology is a science about explaining behavior, usually at a systems level. They bridge the gap between biology and neuroscience.
>>7941822
Kekarooni. This is why I settled on a neurobiology doctoral program when faced with the choice between it and experimental psychology. In experimental psych, you will get very well versed in all manner of research design and statistics, which is pretty interesting and useful.
You will also feel the strange compulsion to go up to bat for the shit anon is talking about here. If you have read Paul Meehl, you would know that none of the "claims" you are making regarding the merits of certain therapies versus others hold up to any real meta-analytic scrutiny and are most likely the direct result of rampant publication bias. Furthermore, the effect size of such therapies is likely modest, at best. Show me one psychodynamic or client centered therapy that reliably changes the individual's behavior by more than one standard deviation of the client's baseline performance as given by a standardized measure of clinical outcome. I'll bet you can't.
Face it, we use these therapies because they are the only option we currently have to treat complex behavioral disorders aside from drugs. There is no post-hoc, redeeming magic fit between existing therapies and disorders that will magically produce profoundly greater efficacy regarding their use. What specific disorder is primal scream therapy just waiting to cure? Logotherapy? Transactional analysis? I could go on.
If you can't admit that, you really shouldn't be claiming to offer much insight into the nature of human functioning and how it might be remedied, lest of all when these recommendations may have serious legal or medical consequences for the patient. In the current clinical paradigm, you might as well be rolling bones.
>>7933244
now that's just cheating
whichever guy made that pyramid of needs thing, and that other guy who made the the 4 letter category psyche evaluation test
>>7941967
>what is systems neuroscience?
Maybe if psychology weren't so math illiterate/phobic, it could articulate systems theories in a way more elegant than as an eternally revolving, flavor-of-the-month word soup fraught with the kind of trendy buzzwords engineered to snag the attention of funding agencies already jaded with social sciences for doing just this.
I honestly never understood this state of affairs. Many experimental psychologists are capable of maths as far flung as taxonomic analysis, structural equation modeling, and factor analysis, yet always want to go back to coining newer, imprecise word soups to define and communicate their theories.
>>7942004
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs?
And the MBTI is not a psychological test. It's a business/industrial personality inventory used most commonly in the workplace. It's just been noted to have some odd issues with validity and reliability where it isn't reliable over time, but is highly accurate for specific traits within a time period.
>>7942007
Which word soup issues are you referring to? The instinct/gene issue? Cause developmental systems "theory" has done a pretty good job rectifying it. A big reason the bickering over semantic word soups is still around is because of the corporate and political climate it's all resting on. Not sure which areas of psychology you're referring to, but at least in behavioral neuroscience the terms are pretty clear cut in defining function.
>>7942004
Maslow and Jung/Myer/Briggs. Throw in Carl Rogers and Carol Gilligan and you'd have a party that would have your average /sci/entist clawing his eyes and ears out in a matter of minutes.
I did something similar once at a grad school interview involving sangria. Getting drunk on their booze and fucking their star grad student made up for my momentary lapse in judgement applying to anything other than neuroscience programs.
>>7942011
Cognitive and social are rampant with this issue. It's almost as if some core ideas are independently "rediscovered" and coined anew every ~15 years or so. This is only exacerbated by a lack of literature review outside one's own subdiscipline and faddish trends that sweep psychology and are quickly forgotten, producing psychological vocabularies that are similarly forgotten. My undergrad advisor was so steamed about this issue, he actually is conducting an ongoing literature review regarding "functional redundancy" of psychological terminology over time. If it means anything to you, he is a learning theorist.
Why would you start a psychology thread on /sci/? You might as well start a jew thread on /pol/
>>7942011
>It's just been noted to have some odd issues with validity and reliability where it isn't reliable over time, but is highly accurate for specific traits within a time period
What? By definition, a test that isn't reliable isn't valid. A broken clock gives minimally erroneous measurements twice a day, but that doesn't change the fact that it is highly incorrect on all other occasions. I don't think anyone would argue that a broken clock is a good measurement instrument because it is sufficiently informative a very small fraction of the time.
>>7942026
What did you have in mind, /his/ or something?
Probably going to sound neckbearded or something, but /sci/ would probably be the best place to discuss philosophy without getting a bunch of humanitarian or religious idiiots
>>7942026
Begs the question though: what is the most laughable science that is still a science in the eyes of the average /sci/ user? I would have to say environmental science. It was the reject major for those too lazy or dumb to do environmental chemistry at my undergrad.
Literally nothing, even at the upper division, but approximations of fully fledged classes taught in physical and biological sciences. There may have even been some half-assed course in animal ethics or conservation ethics too. The most useful thing I think they did was a single semester course in GIS mapping.
Nonetheless, they did have chemistry and biology prereqs, even if they were "chemistry and biology for environmental science" courses.
>TFW they had to offer babbier-tier classes of already babby-tier classes to get these schmucks to pass their classes and segregate their cancer away from the real B.S. students.
>>7941965
But, anon. He was a medical doctor. Not even a real psychologist. You can't blame all your problems on the fringe elements of other disciplines.
>TFW you realize psychology is a containment board for those too chickenshit to get into medicine and too dumb/lazy and wrapped up in "muh humanism" to explore biological accounts of behavior
>>7942068
When I say he set back modern psychology, I meant he set a stereotype for what psychology is and colored perceptions for the next century which steered psychology away from being an empirical discipline and more of some strange pseudo-holistic scientific pursuit that muddled itself with philosophy.
The biological basis of behavior is exactly where psychology is strongest, but it's also nowhere near as popular as the other more stereotypical clinical settings. Freud helped set the stage for that kind of thinking.
>>7935277
Based. He and guys like Robert Plomin are great. Behavior genetics is one of the few unquestionable success stories to come out of the psychological tradition. Much of the statistical, quantitative genetics research on twins is being slowly, but steadily vindicated by molecular genetics, which relies on years of the statistical research to optimize parameters used in the search for the specific, molecular units of heredity.
It is the only area of psychology that anticipated such a need on the part of future researchers and actively worked to generate such data for our benefit. Can't really say as much for personality theory or social psychology.
Not really sure a social psychologist could reach a consensus with himself, let alone set evidence-driven, programmatic research goals mutually agreed upon by his colleagues.
>>7942092
Just as a side note, remember that a sole focus on genetics while disregarding the entire developmental context is a mistake. There's a fair amount of literature on developmental systems theory and why it's an approach that should be adopted rather than solely looking for genetic causes.
More bad psychology videos please. They entertain me.
>>7942085
Why do you think that is? Secondly, what can be done to fix it, if anything? In all honesty, I feel that psychology will become gutted to the point that medicine subsumes the bulk of its therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. Social science will become the domain of a specific arm of applied data science (it is hard to argue that Facebook and Google aren't the true unspoken masters of that domain in this day and age).
Biology will continue to conduct basic research at various scales of analysis from molecular to systems modeling and use this, in conjunction with data science, to articulate true bottom-up theories of brain function and, eventually, higher-order cognitive abilities such as emotion and memory.
Psychology, ostensibly studying the same things albeit through different methods, will become drowned out in a sea of highly technical and specialist language (this has already been happening slowly since the mid 80s/90s and the rise of neuroscience).
Smart researchers will see the writing on the wall and the stubborn ones will go down with the ship and see the remainder of their funding go with it. This is already the story I am already hearing regarding the funding climate at NIDA and NIMH. Social science/psychosocial research programs are being bled at the expense of monumental expansion in biomarker and "connectome"-type research.
>>7942095
Obviously. It's an all-to-common error to assume that quantitative genetics ever attempted to account only for the effects of heritability. More accurately, the intent was always to partition variance into environmental and heritable components to estimate the relative importance of each for a given trait.
That said, complex behaviors are heritable on the order of ~50%, on average, are well-fit by simple additive genetic models, and have a discrete number of known predictors (the sites of individual difference in the human genome) onto which that total heritability may be partitioned.
This has massive utility compared to partitioning the sum of environmental variance onto proposed, psychosocially salient variables, which routinely account for only a few percent of that total variance, even when exhaustive numbers of psychosocial variables are accounted for.
Unlike the 3 billion fixed base pairs of the human genome, the smallest number of psychosocial factors (and the identity of the variables loading onto these factors) accounting for the majority of the estimated variance due to environment is unknown and hereto impossible to model well.
http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/three_laws.pdf
>>7942117
>Biology will continue to conduct basic research at various scales of analysis from molecular to systems modeling and use this to articulate true bottom-up theories of brain function
The reason that won't happen is that hard psychology with actual science is designed to explain behavior. Neuroscience focuses at a cellular level but cannot generalize to larger structures of organized and differentiated cells working in relation to each other. Biology is extremely general, but has a large amount of overlap with psychology, typically in behavioral neuroscience or biological psychology.
Psychology won't be gutted by medicine because science is self-correcting. People in the field are starting to realize that the current methods are impractical, inefficient, and most importantly are not getting the results they want. Though, keep in mind I'm speaking purely from the behavioral neuroscience/developmental psychobiology standpoint. I'm not sure what the field looks like in other sub-disciplines. Social science will probably still be around, but psychology has a broad spectrum from both social to natural science.
>>7942134
I agree with what you've said. The issue is the perspective from which it's taken. While genes do have a role to play in the process, too often every other factor is lumped into "environment" and plays a secondary role to genes. To assume that genes, which mostly code for proteins, can directly translate to behavior is misguided.
>>7942134
>>7942135
If you aren't familiar with Developmental Systems Theory, I'd recommend you give this a read:
http://paulgriffiths.representinggenes.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/publications/B1_9.pdf
This approach has been brought up in recent times, and has resulted in important discoveries in the field that a solely genetic standpoint doesn't account for. DST allows for more practical and effective methodology of testing. I like to believe that at its core science is about finding the simplest correct solution with as little effort as possible, and I think this would be a definite step in the right direction.
>>7942095
Also, Gene x Development (GxD) and Gene x Environment (GxE) designs have been explored but have serious issues obtaining appropriate statistical power to reveal anything beyond drawing at straws.
On average, this means obtaining sizes on the order of tens of thousands of participants. Completely impractical for all but the most well-funded research consortia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476066/
>>7942139
And yet everyone focuses on genes like they're the "architect" or "plan" of a cell. The Human Genome Project failed in its original goals, but corporate America needs to keep its pharmaceutical complexes greased.
>>7942135
So, what would you say about studies of complex neuroscilatory function and other emergent, electrophysiological properties proposed as high-level manifestations of brain function. I have some colleagues attempting to do in vivo recording of zebrafish neurons firing who fully consider themselves neuroscientists, yet are effectively code monkeys and comp sci types who have grad students handle the wet lab microscopy. They aim to produce models that parsimoniously reflect exactly how electrically active cells in the brain hierarchically organize and encode/decode stimuli. This is hardly cognition, but it is pretty high-level nonetheless.
For that matter, I have friends who study neuromuscular junctions and neuroendocrine function as well. These are all examples of cells from differentiated lineages interacting. It is, admittedly, a narrow vantage unto itself, but it is one piece of a wider puzzle that tends to be mostly coherent.
>Psychology won't be gutted by medicine because science is self-correcting.
I think the better branches of experimental will come through. Bottom line is it's hard to pivot research-wise and retrain when you are still running a lab, publishing, and perhaps teaching. I've seen good people try and give up. That's why it's up to young guys like you and I to see the light and get off to a good start from the get go.
Clinical has a certain love of the soft social science, though, that goes beyond rational considerations. It is really core in their programs in a way I could never understand or rally around. I've frequently seen clinical folks respond to psychobiology like a Muslim reacts to a pork dinner. If that deep distaste persists, they will hasten their own irrelevance. The pendulum just isn't going to "swing back" to the psychosocial side of things eventually like many personality/social/clinical folks somewhat conceitedly believe. Not saying that to spite them, simply as a statement of the apparent facts.
>>7942151
The HGP met and exceeded its goals, which were simply to derive the basic base-per-base sequence of the human genome, 99.9% of which we share with all other humans. Overwhelmingly, the sequence archived by NCBI today is highly representative of your and my genome in that regard. It was essential in teaching us facts about the architecture of the genome we wouldn't otherwise know. For instance, prior to the first draft of the sequence being released, credible experts overestimated the number of protein coding genes possessed by humans by factors of five or more.
Unfortunately, it just turns out that many human traits are affected by many molecular genetic components, each contributing a tiny fraction of the total effect.
To find these markers and accurately estimate their effect, we need to use very many people, which will eventually happen. In fact, 23andMe currently possesses sufficient sample size to, in theory, fit such models. This ability will only grow in the coming years with increased data, better computing power, and cheaper sequencing.
>Fun fact: the statistical techniques at work here are only possible because of a theorem expounded by Terry Tao in the mid-00s. Based fuckin Terry.
>>7942182
Its listed goal sure, but all the espoused curing of large numbers of diseases and improving the human condition, unlocking the secrets of the human body from that single project did not occur.
>>7942137
>http://paulgriffiths.representinggenes.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/publications/B1_9.pdf
This is top-tier, anon. Certainly gonna read it in full and perhaps take it to journal club. A lot of my colleagues make these assumptions and it appears to be an intelligent treatment of why this may prove to be a poor choice.
As an aside, are you in the US? Always have to ask on here.
>>7942195
Yes, I'm in the U.S.
>>7942167
Well unfortunately, I'm only an undergraduate-soon to be graduated-graduate school scientist wannabe who will most likely fail to achieve his goals and end up offing myself due to failure, but funnily enough my lab director's expressed great interest in understanding neural rhythms in relation to motor development. I would argue that that is -exactly- what cognition is, an encoding and decoding of stimuli within various layers of the brain and their associations with each other. It's a fact that within neuroscience and psych, as the two fields work towards research topics they overlap very very often. The difference is mostly in background which determines the sorts of questions they ask. Psychologists are much more experienced with viewing larger frameworks of system development which build off of the cellular network work that neuroscience focuses in. I was mostly referring to how there are neuroscientists who make generalizations about the function of their studied cells to the larger system in the brain when they know nothing about developmental and other various influences beyond the cells themselves.
>I've frequently seen clinical folks respond to psychobiology like a Muslim reacts to a pork dinner.
How so? I don't have much experience with clinical environments other than a few questions sessions I had with some therapists/psychs who worked there.
>>7931981
>Bad psychology
That's just normal psychology. The only good psychologists call themselves positive psychologists for some ungodly reason.
>>7942184
No it didn't, but I'm not sure that was ever intended within the scope of that project. If it was, it was an pernicious mistake as ill-conceived as the sort of neo-phrenological essentialism you see in bad cognitive neuroimaging studies.
What you are getting at is interesting and speaks to an issue psychometricians have known about forever. If measurement instruments are imperfect even without measurement error (they fail to capture all informative variance present in a given population for a given trait), we are already at a disadvantage when we try to partition that flawed measure of outcome onto a limited subset of factors of interest to us that we would like to use to explain variance in the criterion measure.
The real world is messy and, often times, noise may be indistinct from other informative signals that are, thus, lost to us. The structure of predictors may be hierarchical or linearly dependent. Thankfully, this why we have data scientists and bright statisticians who can apply the math everybody loves on this board to construct rational fixes to remedy these problems.
As a concrete example, about 63% of variance in general cognitive ability is due to additive genetic factors. This means that somewhere there is a list of X coefficients of a simple linear model that shows how the discrete, weighted units of molecular heredity sum to estimate an individual's cognitive ability with some modest error of estimate due to noise and other factors.
Still, I would argue a model capable of assigning ~63% of variance would be excellent in any domain of social sciences. Does it tell you anything deeply functional and physiological at face value? No, it's a predictive, probabilistic instrument. The identity and coefficients of its predictors have the potential to be mined extensively, though, on the basis of things like gene ontogeny and biochemical pathway enrichment. That data set would be a bioinformaticists dream, honestly.
>>7942210
>positive psychology
>good psychologists
It's just the same old turd wrapped up in a new, expertly misleading wrapper, anon. Psychology has become exceedingly good at doing that.
>>7942235
>the same old turd
Yes, that's called psychology. It hasn't changed for eons and it's not soon to change now, either. If you want to study psychology, expect that redundancy.
>>7933244
freud was right about penis envy/castration anxiety, which was a surprisingly feminist observation from some random austrian cokehead
>>7942237
>It hasn't changed for eons and it's not soon to change now, either.
>>7942249
Social psychology is even worse. It doesn't qualify as science yet because it doesn't generate testable hypotheses. Never mind the miniscule sample size of society-expressing species.
>>7942257
I was joking about your claim that psychology hasn't changed for eons. Psychology has in fact been changing, mostly by creating various sub-fields some of which are more legitimate than others. It's an extremely young field, so it's still in it's weaning period where the non-useful and incorrect models need to be weeded out, but while there are joke fields within it that should really be in the humanities there is a core of hard science that deserves to be acknowledged.
Though, I don't know much about social psychology beyond the fact that I had trouble differentiating it from sociology.
>>7942208
Got it. That is true. Neuroscientists, even at the systems level, almost exclusively take a bottom up approach. In most departments, which are typically run out of the school of biological sciences, they end up being the odd man out because they are so abstracted above the the level of basic tractography and cell biology.
I agree, the "petri dish to bedside" model is a shit one and one that no good neuroscientist should be proud of. Funny fact, but I had a big guy in Alzheimer's research tell me that we have "cured" over 80 models of the disease in rodents over the last 20 years, yet funding from pharma has only clamped shut as these models, one after one, failed to clinically translate. This is even in the face of rapidly rising cases of dementia as we speak.
This is an issue primarily driven by overly "sterile" and greedily reductive models of neurological disease that are clearly wrong. There is a great reluctance on the part of such people to admit that relevant confounds may exist outside the scope of their research as they would like to pursue it, namely at a higher, behavioral level of analysis.
Regarding clinical, the best I can say is that the people that go that route are hardly dumb, but they do want different things out of their training. If you're comfortable and interested in the clinical setting, motivated to learn more about psychosocial aspects of psychopathology, want to learn more about stats and methods, and are interested in psychometrics, go for it. If you want to pursue more physiological stuff, I would consider cognitive neuroscience (imaging, ERPs, TMS stuff) or neuroscience/neurobiology (the nitty gritty biology). Unfortunately, there are few programs that do both of these (an odd quirk that likely harbors a good and profound insight). Some clinical programs do cog. neuroscience stuff and tend to cluster at large state schools and top-tier privates.
>>7942261
>your claim that psychology
"It" was not a referent to a word I used.
Please call it "the" claim to avoid putting words in your opponent's mouth, thanks.
>>7942261
>I had trouble differentiating it from sociology
It's ok. Even social psychologists forget how to do that sometimes. Right hand to the sky, there is nothing funnier than watching a social psychologist try to establish credibility by shitting all over sociology. It's like watching a mentally challenged adult act holier than thou after winning at a rigged game of Trivial Pursuit Jr.
>>7942279
>your opponent's mouth
Presume a bit much do we? From where I sit, I don't see much of a competition. Before you take that as an insult, let me clarify that I don't think anybody is actually disagreeing here.
Regarding your point about change, it's funny because Carl Rogers is famous for suggesting that psychology is the means precisely of human change and adaptation. Specifically, he named this as the key aim of his client-centered therapy and as the presumed reason for humans' ability to rapidly adjust to radically different modes of existence, settled agriculture and urban industrialism key among them. He thought the human mind was changing constantly in how it conceptualized the world.
Furthermore, questions regarding what constitutes culture and society are rarely taken on even by psychologists, who do tend to leave these issues to sociology and anthropology.
Once again I will say the following: the most prolific, under-appreciated, and statistically well-powered "social psychologists" today are Google and Facebook. Interestingly, the model fitting, statistical learning models they use are hypothesis-free and, thus, relatively free of a priori bias and the need to test explicitly named hypotheses. Surprise, surprise. This is why most other credible scientific disciplines invest in statistical modeling approaches. Why has psychology been historically hesitant to introduce such concepts at the undergraduate level? Hmmm. I wonder why that could be.
Maybe we have struggling student athletes and diversity admits who need a place to park their ass and generate favorable collegiate statistics for as long as it takes them to graduate.
>>7942317
>questions regarding what constitutes culture and society are rarely taken on even by psychologists
I don't differentiate psychology and evolutionary psychology. I wasn't claiming anything about the field, I was claiming in relation to >>7942235
>the same old turd
That positivity crap *IS* what defines psychology. It's the only consistent result ever achieved in the field of psychology. Studying wellness and health removes the selective bias that made classic psychology such a horror to participate in. Recall that lobotomy used to be a thing.
The majority of them are taught to use fallacies.
It's gotten the point I've had to sort fallacies into category types just to make criticisms easier:
1.) Ego fallacies
2.) Social fallacies
3.) Ergo fallacies
4.) Correlation fallacies
5.) Buverism fallacies
And the whole setup is to push a proposition while attacking any dissent or opposition, both tactics employing fallacies.
Fallacies and biases are still very serious issues.
Psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, nurses, social workers, teachers, etc.
All have been pushed to embrace and utilize all sorts of "time saving" fallacies.
Talk about iatrogenic timebombs.
>>7942331
I don't tripfag on principle, but I might have to. I'm the anon you can find above talking about testing and measurement, neuroscience, molecular genetics, and behavioral genetics. I'll be honest: I have my undergraduate and Master's degree's in experimental psychology and I don't get what you're driving at.
In all honesty, you sound underage or like you've taken only a few cherrypicked classes in psych. That's one dogshit thing about psych that I always hated when I student taught--there is far too much room for a student to be willfully ignorant of a large corpus of the discipline while taking only what pleases them. At the undergrad level, it's passable and sufficient to graduate, I guess, but it's certainly something that doesn't persist into grad school, in both clinical and experimental programs.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I know where you're coming from and it is very familiar to me. Also, lobotomy is an artifact of the medical tradition. No psychologist has ever practiced psychosurgery as, by definition, they are not medical doctors.
If you are really interested in psych and brain & behavioral function, please continue to read what interests you and take classes with a critical mindset. The answers may be thus far lacking, but the questions proposed by psychology are really timeless and worth asking.
>>7942354
>the questions proposed by psychology are really timeless and worth asking
I'd agree, but "psychology" doesn't pose questions.
I realize that the details of a field are always greater than the summaries provided for the unlearned, but that constitutes a valid PR problem in my book. If this is an issue you face consistently, then it is a systemic problem. You sound like one of the few 4chan-facing researchers that's actually read enough psychology to understand it as separate from medicine and psychotherapy. Which is nice, and I thank you for your presence, but you have to realize that the field does have a public face. It sounds like you're past the classical psychology/positive psychology split, so that's good, but the rest of the world still thinks Freud is relevant. That's not good. Positive psychology is more about changing the way people see psychologists than changing the way psychology is studied, and in my book, if you aren't aware of your public image, you're not that far along in your understanding of psychology. I'm not saying you have to switch to PR or anything, but you have to realize that there's always a logic behind the way people see things. "Just read more" won't always work the way you seem to want it to work.
>>7941993
Did you reply to the wrong person? I agree that psychodynamics and client centered therapy are inefficient and that their effectiveness towards anxiety/depressive disorders is likely due to factors outside of the assumptions of those therapies.
I'd argue that behavioral treatments are much more efficient at treating various disorders when compared to psychodynamics.
What do you guys think of the behavioral view on mentalistic explanations for behavior; IE that it isn't rational to assert that behavior is due to feelings/emotions but rather they are biproducts of enviromental stimuli? Should other fields of psychology consider this?
>>7942338
You might like this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biases_in_judgment_and_decision_making
>>7942375
>the classical psychology/positive psychology split
This is actually an issue? There are still people who believe this? I was always under the impression that psychology has the makings of a hard science, and that the only reason it isn't considered one is because some people have the wrong idea about it thanks to people like Freud.
>>7943638
I agree that if you want to understand the origins of an action, you need to avoid anthropomorphism or making claims about cognition you cannot verify. We've given those who believe those methods are useful and valid a chance, and it's clear it is not producing the results we need.
I remember there was a paper done on the treatment of people in critical condition due to anorexia in a number of international clinics. The thesis was that rather than anorexia being a body dismorphia issue rooted in cognition, it was actually a biological issue at heart where patients reported a lack of feeling hunger and often felt sated despite eating less than average. They set up an apparatus for these patients to display how much food they ate in comparison to an average person and simply had it in view next to them as they ate. The success rate without any relapse of symptoms after a successful regimen of this method was around 75% if I recall correctly. The power was huge compared to any of the current clinical treatments.
>>7944058
A portion of psychologists still believe in freudian ideas unfortunately.
>>7932397
its not m8
