First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Psychology
11415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Eng Land
Online
Posted 9/12/14

compress wrote:



Well, I'm probably about to state the obvious here but I think going for whatever interests you is usually the best option, regardless of the quality of teaching. But then again, A-Level Psychology isn't essential for studying Psychology at degree level. So I guess you're not missing much even if you decided to pursue it in further education.


Oh, right I'll bear that in mind. And as for the whole 'teacher making the subject interesting' thing, I get that won't apply to everyone but it did to me. At GCSE level I quite enjoyed French and was at the top of the class for a time, but then I ended up with a teacher who was boring, bad at keeping control of the class, and I found myself eventually not caring and I failed. When I took geography, a lesson I wasn't that bothered about and really chose because nothing else interested me, I found myself engaged because the teacher was engaging and funny, and I actually passed. Given you obviously need to pay attention, if a teacher can't keep mine then it'll be in one ear and out the other, and my chance of failing will be that much higher. Like I say it's not like that for everyone, but in psychology, a lesson which I would suspect will require you to pay close attention, if I'm falling asleep that's not a good start.
56 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

Phersu wrote:

What do you think about psychology?

I, personally, love it. It's so fascinating, which is why I'm majoring in it in college. Whether I'll go to med school and become a Psychiatrist doctor with an MD, or just go for regular college for just as long and become a Psychologist doctor with a PH.D, I'm not sure....but I'm definitely loving it.

So....opinions?
I would implore you to change your major if at all possible. You are wasting your money (or your parent's money) earning a worthless degree.

Psychology is a pseudo-science which fails to converge on any universe truths and values differences of opinion more than a consensus of fact. For example, pick up a psych book and there's 10 different theories to explain the same thing. This is not how science works. If anything, it's closer to how philosophy works except with psychology there's science-adjacent methods being employed by retards. There's a reason the National Academy of Sciences do not recognize Psychology (and Sociology, for that matter) as sciences: because they're not sciences.

It's also worth mentioning that according to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, all branches of psychology (clinical, I/O, developmental, etc...) have the highest unemployment rate of any degree -- higher than fine arts and art history.
14031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

Ember_McLain wrote:


Phersu wrote:

What do you think about psychology?

I, personally, love it. It's so fascinating, which is why I'm majoring in it in college. Whether I'll go to med school and become a Psychiatrist doctor with an MD, or just go for regular college for just as long and become a Psychologist doctor with a PH.D, I'm not sure....but I'm definitely loving it.

So....opinions?
I would implore you to change your major if at all possible. You are wasting your money (or your parent's money) earning a worthless degree.

Psychology is a pseudo-science which fails to converge on any universe truths and values differences of opinion more than a consensus of fact. For example, pick up a psych book and there's 10 different theories to explain the same thing. This is not how science works. If anything, it's closer to how philosophy works except with psychology there's science-adjacent methods being employed by retards. There's a reason the National Academy of Sciences do not recognize Psychology (and Sociology, for that matter) as sciences: because they're not sciences.

It's also worth mentioning that according to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, all branches of psychology (clinical, I/O, developmental, etc...) have the highest unemployment rate of any degree -- higher than fine arts and art history.


what do you think psychology is for? did you just come out of a cage?
56 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

xtangle wrote:
what do you think psychology is for? did you just come out of a cage?
Psychology is for pseudo-intellectuals who found Neuroscience and Cognitive science too challenging, thus, they are majoring in an unscientific liberal art masquerading as a useful discipline -- which it isn't.

Insofar as psychology's usefulness is concerned, any benefit reaped from pseudo-scientific analysis is purely coincidental. You may get correct results, or you may get incorrect results. And since psychology has systematically failed to converge on consensuses regarding even the most trivial matters, if you data doesn't work just make a new theory and get published.
Posted 9/12/14

Ember_McLain wrote:

I would implore you to change your major if at all possible. You are wasting your money (or your parent's money) earning a worthless degree.

Psychology is a pseudo-science which fails to converge on any universe truths and values differences of opinion more than a consensus of fact. For example, pick up a psych book and there's 10 different theories to explain the same thing. This is not how science works. If anything, it's closer to how philosophy works except with psychology there's science-adjacent methods being employed by retards. There's a reason the National Academy of Sciences do not recognize Psychology (and Sociology, for that matter) as sciences: because they're not sciences.

It's also worth mentioning that according to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, all branches of psychology (clinical, I/O, developmental, etc...) have the highest unemployment rate of any degree -- higher than fine arts and art history.


Neuroscience is no silver bullet to complete comprehension of how the brains works. It's purpose is not to ultimately disprove the validity of psychology. Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system whereas psychology is the study of behaviour - they go hand in hand (cognitive science). What's wrong with having "10 different theories"? The same could be said about behavioural economics, yet it is still heavily relied on within business and management.
14031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

Ember_McLain wrote:


xtangle wrote:
what do you think psychology is for? did you just come out of a cage?
Psychology is for pseudo-intellectuals who found Neuroscience and Cognitive science too challenging, thus, they are majoring in an unscientific liberal art masquerading as a useful discipline -- which it isn't.

Insofar as psychology's usefulness is concerned, any benefit reaped from pseudo-scientific analysis is purely coincidental. You may get correct results, or you may get incorrect results. And since psychology has systematically failed to converge on consensuses regarding even the most trivial matters, if you data doesn't work just make a new theory and get published.


and i believe only blocks of ice should exist so lets make this our only science, aight? you may understand my point.
56 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

compress wrote:
Neuroscience is no silver bullet to complete comprehension of how the brains works. It's purpose is not to ultimately disprove the validity of psychology. Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system whereas psychology is the study of behaviour - they go hand in hand (cognitive science). What's wrong with having "10 different theories"? The same could be said about behavioural economics, yet it is still heavily relied on within business and management.
On the contrary, Love, while Neuroscience isn't a "silver bullet" to understanding the brain, Psychology isn't a "bullet" at all. Any data obtained using pseudo-scienctific speculation should be (and is) dismissed in the scientific community.

The issue with "10 different theories" is that Psychology should not value differences of opinion more than it values reaching an actual understanding. Psychology? Understand the brain? Well here's 10 different theories regarding the development of executive functioning. Which of these theories is true? Well fMRI scanning says that Differential Association Theory is likely.... blah blah blah.

Also Economics is just as bad. Olivier Blanchard, chief economics of the International Monetary Fund has frequently lamented on economist's inability to predict. Why didn't we see the mortgage crisis of 2008 coming? Why did no one see stock prices artificially inflated before the great depression? When will Japan get out of its 25 year recession? Zero answers from economists. Why? Because it's another crack pop-science that goes through scientific motions but fails to converge on fundamental theories regarding truth or accurate models with proficient predictory capabilities.

Now, I'm not saying Psychology or Economics or whatever is useless. What I am saying is any utility gained from those disciplines is purely coincidental.
Posted 9/12/14

Ember_McLain wrote:
On the contrary, Love, while Neuroscience isn't a "silver bullet" to understanding the brain, Psychology isn't a "bullet" at all. Any data obtained using pseudo-scienctific speculation should be (and is) dismissed in the scientific community.

The issue with "10 different theories" is that Psychology should not value differences of opinion more than it values reaching an actual understanding. Psychology? Understand the brain? Well here's 10 different theories regarding the development of executive functioning. Which of these theories is true? Well fMRI scanning says that Differential Association Theory is likely.... blah blah blah.

Also Economics is just as bad. Olivier Blanchard, chief economics of the International Monetary Fund has frequently lamented on economist's inability to predict. Why didn't we see the mortgage crisis of 2008 coming? Why did no one see stock prices artificially inflated before the great depression? When will Japan get out of its 25 year recession? Zero answers from economists. Why? Because it's another crack pop-science that goes through scientific motions but fails to converge on fundamental theories regarding truth or accurate models with proficient predictory capabilities.

Now, I'm not saying Psychology or Economics or whatever is useless. What I am saying is any utility gained from those disciplines is purely coincidental.


Quite the comedian, aren't you?

Dismissed in the scientific community? If psychology is a pseudo-science, would the likes of Scientific American and New Scientist produce psychology articles alongside others on the natural, physical and earth sciences every week? I don't think they would. The point I'm trying to make about having multiple theories is that humans are not rational. We need more than just one theory. Everything we do is subjective. Hence why the social sciences exist in the first place.

I'm afraid I can't comment on financial economics - it's a subject I know almost nothing about. What I do know, is that the economy, as a whole, is essentially a stochastic process. I doubt any economist can be 100% certain of anything there.

Look, I don't disagree with you about the payoff of having a degree in psychology. I feel that it is unfair to write psychology (or any social science for that matter) off as pseudo-science. You don't honestly mean to tell me that psychology is no different to astrology, etc?
56 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

compress wrote:
Quite the comedian, aren't you?

Dismissed in the scientific community? If psychology is a pseudo-science, would the likes of Scientific American and New Scientist produce psychology articles alongside others on the natural, physical and earth sciences every week? I don't think they would. The point I'm trying to make about having multiple theories is that humans are not rational. We need more than just one theory. Everything we do is subjective. Hence why the social sciences exist in the first place.

I'm afraid I can't comment on financial economics - it's a subject I know almost nothing about. What I do know, is that the economy, as a whole, is essentially a stochastic process. I doubt any economist can be 100% certain of anything there.

Look, I don't disagree with you about the payoff of having a degree in psychology. I feel that it is unfair to write psychology (or any social science for that matter) off as pseudo-science. You don't honestly mean to tell me that psychology is no different to astrology, etc?
Scientific American isn't an academic journal, it's a magazine. New Scientists isn't an academic journal, it's a magazine as well.

Let me spell it out for you, perhaps you're not familiar with scientific theory:
- Science requires reproducibility; countless psychology experiments (Milgram, Bystander, etc...) cannot be reproduced, and if they were conducted again they'd have different results. This is not how science works.
- Psychology lacks theory and agreement found in other sciences like Chemistry and Physics.
- Many areas of psychology rely on surveys and questionnaires which removes the objectivity of other sciences.
- Certain concepts that psychologists are interested in (personality, thinking, emotion, etc...) cannot be measured directly and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which removes objectivity.
- Additionally, Fanelli (2010) showed than Psychiatrists confirmed the effects they were looking for 91% of the time, a rate 5 times higher than any of the natural sciences -- in other words, there's systemic bias.

Now, you say these problems are irrelevant, because studying humans is hard. Well shit. Quantum Mechanics is hard. Quantum Field Theory is hard. Developing the SMPP was hard. But we have those theories because smart people actually tried and did real science. What do psychologists do? Precisely not that. Just because something is hard, that isn't an excuse to half-ass it with shitty pseudo-scientific bullshit.

And you, Love, know that's true. There's no reason to vehemently defend this crack disciple. Just dismiss it like the rest of the scientific community and move on. Let the neurosciences and cognitive scientists -- people who are actually trying to discover universal truths -- handle this.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 9/12/14 , edited 9/12/14

Ember_McLain wrote:
Scientific American isn't an academic journal, it's a magazine. New Scientists isn't an academic journal, it's a magazine as well.

Let me spell it out for you, perhaps you're not familiar with scientific theory:
- Science requires reproducibility; countless psychology experiments (Milgram, Bystander, etc...) cannot be reproduced, and if they were conducted again they'd have different results. This is not how science works.
- Psychology lacks theory and agreement found in other sciences like Chemistry and Physics.
- Many areas of psychology rely on surveys and questionnaires which removes the objectivity of other sciences.
- Certain concepts that psychologists are interested in (personality, thinking, emotion, etc...) cannot be measured directly and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which removes objectivity.
- Additionally, Fanelli (2010) showed than Psychiatrists confirmed the effects they were looking for 91% of the time, a rate 5 times higher than any of the natural sciences -- in other words, there's systemic bias.

Now, you say these problems are irrelevant, because studying humans is hard. Well shit. Quantum Mechanics is hard. Quantum Field Theory is hard. Developing the SMPP was hard. But we have those theories because smart people actually tried and did real science. What do psychologists do? Precisely not that. Just because something is hard, that isn't an excuse to half-ass it with shitty pseudo-scientific bullshit.

And you, Love, know that's true. There's no reason to vehemently defend this crack disciple. Just dismiss it like the rest of the scientific community and move on. Let the neurosciences and cognitive scientists -- people who are actually trying to discover universal truths -- handle this.


Well, gee, let's invalidate an entire field of science that has been studied for over a hundred years because of your opinion. Sounds reasonable. You. Without Ph.D or MD, presumably. Maybe not even a masters.
JuJu26 
27552 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 9/12/14
I took an intro course to it two semesters ago and I really enjoyed it!
14525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / US
Offline
Posted 9/12/14
Psychology really is an interesting and broad field. I just recently finished my Bachelor's degree in psychology and plan on continuing with a Master's. Although due to scheduled entries, I won't be in the Master's program until the summer.
Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/12/14
i took some psych classes in college, i liked the ones where i had good teachers XD lol my psych 101 teacher made me really love it.

most of it is theory, though. yeah maybe a theory has been tried and found to be true 99.99% of time but there's always something that can't quite make it a fact. a lot like science actually XD
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 9/12/14 , edited 9/12/14

Phersu wrote:


Ember_McLain wrote:
Scientific American isn't an academic journal, it's a magazine. New Scientists isn't an academic journal, it's a magazine as well.

Let me spell it out for you, perhaps you're not familiar with scientific theory:
- Science requires reproducibility; countless psychology experiments (Milgram, Bystander, etc...) cannot be reproduced, and if they were conducted again they'd have different results. This is not how science works.
- Psychology lacks theory and agreement found in other sciences like Chemistry and Physics.
- Many areas of psychology rely on surveys and questionnaires which removes the objectivity of other sciences.
- Certain concepts that psychologists are interested in (personality, thinking, emotion, etc...) cannot be measured directly and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which removes objectivity.
- Additionally, Fanelli (2010) showed than Psychiatrists confirmed the effects they were looking for 91% of the time, a rate 5 times higher than any of the natural sciences -- in other words, there's systemic bias.

Now, you say these problems are irrelevant, because studying humans is hard. Well shit. Quantum Mechanics is hard. Quantum Field Theory is hard. Developing the SMPP was hard. But we have those theories because smart people actually tried and did real science. What do psychologists do? Precisely not that. Just because something is hard, that isn't an excuse to half-ass it with shitty pseudo-scientific bullshit.

And you, Love, know that's true. There's no reason to vehemently defend this crack disciple. Just dismiss it like the rest of the scientific community and move on. Let the neurosciences and cognitive scientists -- people who are actually trying to discover universal truths -- handle this.


Well, gee, let's invalidate an entire field of science that has been studied for over a hundred years because of your opinion. Sounds reasonable. You. Without Ph.D or MD, presumably. Maybe not even a masters.



Psychology is a very useful practice. The only problem is that people who study it and only get a bachelors in it generally think they are a god and can read minds, at least in my experience. Getting a bachelors in psychology is like getting a bachelors in business (with the exception of Accounting and Financing): useless unless you go for your MA (or whatever they call it for psychology) in graduate school.

I don't want to praise psychology too much though. It really depends on what particular area you specialize, but often I consider it not a science, but a social science, like sociology is. Personally, I consider sociology more useful to society than most areas of psychology. In short, Ember McLain is mostly right. The fact is, many scientists in other fields have been very critical of some fields of psychology. Psychiatry is even a little more shaky in some respects, because they tend to hold more favorable views of psychoanalysis, which has increasingly come to be regarded as a pseudo-science by many scientists.
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 9/12/14 , edited 9/12/14

Ember_McLain wrote:


compress wrote:
Neuroscience is no silver bullet to complete comprehension of how the brains works. It's purpose is not to ultimately disprove the validity of psychology. Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system whereas psychology is the study of behaviour - they go hand in hand (cognitive science). What's wrong with having "10 different theories"? The same could be said about behavioural economics, yet it is still heavily relied on within business and management.
On the contrary, Love, while Neuroscience isn't a "silver bullet" to understanding the brain, Psychology isn't a "bullet" at all. Any data obtained using pseudo-scienctific speculation should be (and is) dismissed in the scientific community.

The issue with "10 different theories" is that Psychology should not value differences of opinion more than it values reaching an actual understanding. Psychology? Understand the brain? Well here's 10 different theories regarding the development of executive functioning. Which of these theories is true? Well fMRI scanning says that Differential Association Theory is likely.... blah blah blah.

Also Economics is just as bad. Olivier Blanchard, chief economics of the International Monetary Fund has frequently lamented on economist's inability to predict. Why didn't we see the mortgage crisis of 2008 coming? Why did no one see stock prices artificially inflated before the great depression? When will Japan get out of its 25 year recession? Zero answers from economists. Why? Because it's another crack pop-science that goes through scientific motions but fails to converge on fundamental theories regarding truth or accurate models with proficient predictory capabilities.

Now, I'm not saying Psychology or Economics or whatever is useless. What I am saying is any utility gained from those disciplines is purely coincidental.


I'm going to object to your last comment regarding "coincidental." Indeed, economists and other social scientist, such as historians (although that's a huge debate amongst ourselves in our community, but I won't go into that), have a tough time predicting long term trends. I really wouldn't let that bother me though. At least in history, historicism, the idea one can predict long-term future trends based upon the study of the past, has mostly been discarded by academics. But that doesn't necessarily mean short term trends can't be reasonably guessed or predicted. Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, wrote about this in his book The Poverty of Historicism. I would think the same principle applies to economics and most other social sciences. This shouldn't diminish their importance.Therefore, calling the entire field a pseudo-science is overboard.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.