Can we discuss psychology on /sci/ or not?
>>7939561
No. The reason being that /sci/ in either 15-17 year oild highschoolers or autistic mid-20s math PhDs.
>>7939561
Of course. Psychology is a science, regardless of the fact that most "psychologists" are not scientists.
>>7939569
Wrong fag, /sci/ is full of professionals who have experience and know what they're doing. Go be dumb somewhere else, brainlet.
>>7939583
Just FYI, it's not clear if you're being ironic.
>>7939573
well isnt psychometrics part of psychology?
>>7939561
sure
if no one wants to discuss it, the thread will delete itself in a day
if it's genuinely interesting it'll stay bumped! amazing look at that
>>7939610
psychometrics are responsible for psychology being a joke. literally a stones throw from a child's science fair project trying to quantify principles he only casually comprehends
No pseudoscience pls
>>7939617
If psychometrics are a childs project thats cool bro, your probably right.
The thing that naggs me is why the 3 top engineering countries in the world (japan south korea and germany) coincidentally are also the 3 countries with the highest national avg iq in the world.
As an college bio major who dealt with alot of statistics, looking at that data combined with the fact i hear all the time on physics and stem forums that you need a 120 iq to be able to deal with engineering course material, i would say the correlation reeks of statistical significance.
If you think psychometrics is a childs project, thats fine.
But youre not done then.
Its your job to now come up with a name for a field of psychology that needs to be created to study these correlations.
Im all ears capitan!
>>7940041
the people that buy into statistical studies are the people that buy into IQ. but i assume that the same person that claims to have dealt with a lot of statistics personally corroborated the statistics he is purporting, no? because it would be a frighteningly dissonant person that did otherwise
>>7940044
Haha ur not clever. I would know i met some clever ppl in college, which unlike in your case, wasnt community. It was duke kek
>>7940070
explains it
>>7940076
Exceedingly clever !
Just remember, you suck at physics. Always have, always will. I was going to mention another thing that mattered, but i had to stop myself, and remember that physics is it... Nothing else matters.
Its ok man... I was inferior once...
On second thought, i never was, but dont get too down on yourself is the point
>>7940083
i guess studying biology at duke was your life dream
>>7940089
Pwning someone so hard that they hang themselves and stream it is my goal. You might be the chosen one, political correctness boy!
>Go with my grandfather to psychologist at hospital, part of his list of appointments
>fanciest part of the hospital with carpetting and comfy chairs
>fat dumb as shit "psychiatrist" asks some useless questions
>she talks about all the cutbacks going on at the hospital
why don't they just cut the whole fucking psychiatry unit
>>7940070
I'm not the anon you were replying to, but:
>Duke
>Good (ranked 29th globally)
Anon, it's not even top 10 globally. I'd be embarrassed to brag about Duke.
My university is consistently ranked top 10 globally, and I'm still somewhat embarrassed because it's not Harvard, MIT, or Cambridge.
TL;DR you are a pleb, your university is just above pleb status, and you should feel bad
>>7940301
Cuz crazy people stab people
>>7940355
"crazy people" are more likely be on the receiving end of violence than to be on the giving side.
> muh stigma
>>7940362
>>muh stigma
Nah I've just spent enough time in psych wards to know they are nice to have.
Reminder that statistical significance is going to be downplayed a ton in future psych studies, with much more focus being put on effect size. A few journals have already banned significance from being reported because it encourages shitty experiments
Also for all the 15 year old fedoras, there are multiple branches in psychology and subsets within those. I can see your point if you're saying social psych isn't a science, because it has a lot of bullshit influenced by muh feels and experiments that reach that p<.05 but where the effect size is relatively tiny. Injunctive and descriptive norms was a pretty good contribution to the field though
>>7940301
I thought psychiatrists just medicate their patients.
>>7940041
>>7939617
Just say you want to study cognitive phenomics and you're set. The minute someone in biomedical sciences touches something and conjures up some half-assed "-omics" descriptor for it, it automatically gains legitimacy and the likelihood of exponentially better funding support. I say this as somebody doing metabolomic biomarker discovery. It's really a joke, especially when it amounts to rebranding an existing area of research (psychometrics) and tacking on a bunch of tenuously useful window dressings (endophenotypes) to sell the whole thing as the best innovation since sliced bread.
>http://www.phenomics.ucla.edu/phenomics/cognitive_phenomics.htm
>>7939614
>implying it'll stay bumped because it's interesting
>not because of an off topic discussion full of samefagging
>psychology
relatively safe
>discuss
pic related
>>7940401
> Most scientific studies have much
less than 80% power, often around 50%
in psychological research and averaging
21% in neuroscience.
Great paper for researchers using frequentist statistics. My PI's collaborator had it recommended to him by a reviewer after he tried to publish this shitty study we all begged him not to (my PI and I were named as contributors). It's a commonsense discussion of why studies without replication arms or robust sample sizes might as well assign p-values by picking numbers out of a hat.
http://mvellend.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/Halsey_etal_NatureMethods.pdf
>>7940352
I agree Duke isn't anything to brag about, but why do you think university prestige matters?
>>7941592
im not him but i was the one posting earlier. i was just ratting on him for giving a pretty asanine response
>>7941592
I went to Penn State (undergrad) and later Cornell (post-grad) for plant biology and agrigenomics, respectively. Anybody that attempts to make sweeping generalizations about the quality of a school or even a department past the undergrad level is kidding themselves. This includes bodies that purport to rank programs.
The reality is that, as a scientist, you will end up in somebody's lab. Even at a great school, there will be some old tenured geezer starting to wax philosophic about his career as opposed to innovating and getting robust grants. Conversely, there can be some really great people at not-so-good programs pulling in a bunch of funding and flying under the radar while doing amazing work.
Once you are in a grad program, you're too goddamn busy to get in a pissing contest about such things anyways. As long as you are frequently publishing material of interest to you in good journals, that is really all that matters.
>>7940352
or princeton...
just saying... that junkies probably smarter than you...
I wouldnt brag abt duke either... obviously i wouldnt... i went to princeton accualy....
accualy is dolan
