Is there a book guide for Psychology? Where should I start? What sequential order do you recommend?

Yes that would be fine. If you're interested in an unusual approach to understanding consciousness, check out the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind by julian jaynes. probably wrong about a lot of things like freud, but if you like his style it's genius.

if anything, behaviourism died in the 60's with the advent of cognitivism
the "radical positivistic epistemology" you're complaining about is also called "the scientific method"
neuroimaging technology is used more heavily in basic cognitive neuroscience, which is a pretty fruitful field, than it is in neuropharmacology...

Poor choice of words on my part. What I want to express is that it was around 60s when we started living in a completely positivistic world, which was propelled at least initially by behaviourists. Before that you still had the Freuds and the Jungs at least allowed to coexist.

And yes, I am referring to the scientific method but in the context of psychology specifically, I don't mind physicists using the scientific method for example, but psychology should be responsible for answering some deep questions about human nature (some metaphysical as well) which don't lend themselves to testing in the framework of the scientific method.

>cognitive neuroscience, which is a pretty fruitful field

By what measure? Practically nothing that comes out of this field is improving the life of anyone or telling us anything about the human experience, it's intellectual jerk-off

A textbook, get a basic idea on what all the fields are, and then follow up by reading the sources from the field that interests you.

You're not a psych PhD student, come off it.

And holy shit are you retarded? By far the best advances in psychology as a field have come as a result of the scientific method.

How do you suppose we test anything reliably without using that framework? What you want isn't psychology, it's the ability to jerk yourself off over theories without having to be able to actually back it up with data supporting it. You want a degree in Veeky Forums discourse, not in any sort of actual academia.

How's Erich Fromm?

Yes I only wish I used the infallible god-like scientific method to gather knowledge.

>a p-value of .05 has a true error rate (type I) of AT LEAST 30% GIVEN THAT the experiment is sufficiently powered

Colquhoun, D. (2014). An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. Royal Society open science, 1(3), 140216.

>cognitive neuroscience and psychology studies are NEVER sufficiently powered "Assuming a realistic range of prior probabilities for null hypotheses, false report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings, the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic, and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience."

Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS biology, 15(3), e2000797.

>and even then, 1/3 of research in the social sciences are never cited ONCE (and keep in mind how many people cite themselves)

Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2009). The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 858-862.

>100% (!) of retards who used ordinal data analyzed with parametric tests

Liddell, T., & Kruschke, J. K. (2017). Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong?.

But yeah, keep telling yourself you're a scientist, fine by me

Also you keep alluding to "the best advances in psychology have come as a result of the scientific method", I'm still waiting to hear examples.

For contrast,
>physicists broke down the fucking atom and used the knowledge of subatomic particles to build super a super powerful and small computers and to encrypt data in a way that is (at least for now) unbreakable

>biologists mapped out the entire human genome and more recently they developed technology to make ultra-precise cuts in it

>astronomers extrapolated their theories to suggest that we most probably live in one of infinite possible universes

Yes, Fromm has an interesting perspective. I read To Have or To Be? I think but there's a lot to choose from

>cognitive psychology isn't asking and and answering the most interesting questions about how the mind functions

Yes, it's not. It's telling that even the people in this thread recommend Jung, Freud and Fromm to each other, and different psychotherapists. That was the last time when psychology was asking interesting questions.

define "interesting"

O-oh yeah??!
Well none of that matters when you want to fuck your mom lol

I recommended those guys because that's the sort of thing OP seems interested in.

you sound like a bitter attention-seeking individual, and nothing in your posts suggests an interest in holding an honest conversation

I don't know about the scientific credentials of The Denial of Death, more of a philosophical book really, but to me this is currently the final boss of psychology lit so seconded

games people play is also good and perhaps more predictive of day-to-day behaviour (as opposed to the macro level of Becker's work)

if you value a science by its ability to predict results then the most predictable and immediately observable form of psychology is red pill evo pschology ;)

>I make a post arguments and citations
>you sound like a bitter attention-seeking individual, and nothing in your posts suggests an interest in holding an honest conversation

What did he mean by this?

Don't forget the biases toward publishing positive results

You know, somehow I don't trust any supposed quotes from studies that have all caps or the word "retards" included in it, good stuff.

The first example, while also to be more specific, you've very clearly twisted to suit your agenda here too. PPV isn't the same as statistical significance, and if you honestly think that you should be drawing serious real world conclusions from the results of a single study with a p-value of .05 (or anything actually), you're a moron.

There's also a way more in depth criticism of the article (to which the author never replied).

The discussion in the second article explains that this likely has nothing to do with any inherent errors, rather funding and a too heavy reliance on in the moment decisions.

Third article is a completely different issue, and misleading.

Last one is from what I can tell more of an issue with Likert scales in particular, and suggests a remedy for this, not sure what you meant by this.
What alternative would you suggest? Do you think there would be less issues without the scientific method?

Sure, if you're interested, you could have a look at pretty much every advance in psychology or piece of knowledge we currently employ in any area of it today.

Good job fucking confirming you've never done any formal psych education though, if you're asking for examples of important discoveries using the scientific method. The vast, vast majority of your undergrad and post-grad studies are focused around exactly that. If you're claiming to be an expert, I'm not going to spoonfeed you examples of shit you should already know.

You misquoted your citations and intentionally mislead using that, you're absolutely acting like an attention seeking moron with no interest in an honest conversation.

>What alternative would you suggest? Do you think there would be less issues without the scientific method?

Well if we're around 50% error rate for any given published article then we might as well just flip a coin to decide whether something's true or not. I haven't twisted anything and I don't have an agenda, people can read the articles and draw their own conclusions.

>and if you honestly think that you should be drawing serious real world conclusions from the results of a single study with a p-value of .05 (or anything actually), you're a moron.

That's my whole point. You shoulnd't. Glad we sorted this out

And don't forget the issue of ecological validity

these are all things that are taught in a second year psychology research methods course. congratulations, you're half-way toward getting a degreee in psych.

ok i'll bite
>nature.com/news/neuroscience-the-mind-reader-1.10816
this dude's lab figured out, using methods and experimental paradigms from cognitive neuroscience, that some people who are in vegetative states can communicate, and might be conscious.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2557073/
Describes treating aphasia (difficulty understanding and/or producing language) using neuroscientific findings

>Also you keep alluding to "the best advances in psychology have come as a result of the scientific method"
He should have said "only". Read Popper or something. Inventing a model that happens to fit the phenomena doesn't mean dick.

soooooo

any other psych book recs? keep it as packed with useful information as possible.

i don't think its necessary to answer all the questions as long as the psych perspective can explain the mechanisms or patterns behind behaviors and actions

>Well if we're around 50% error rate for any given published article

Good thing we aren't then, and it's more an issue with certain areas of cognitive neuroscience.

>That's my whole point. You shoulnd't. Glad we sorted this out

Then it's great that literally everybody in the field agrees on that, optimally we would replicate every study several times. Unfortunately this isn't always possible due to how competitive research grants are.

It's good that none of this is a result of some inherent issues with the scientific method though.

Also, like said, you're just spouting shit from an intro level stats course, or words you could get from a single article that goes off at psychology. You're very clearly not a PhD student, and you're not interested in having any sort of honest debate or discussion except for claiming that you're right and being as dishonest as you can to support that. As much as I hate the term, you're pretty much the definition of a pseud.

People like you are the issue with this board.

what's the most respected branch of psychology today?

Psychology is an umbrella term for a lot of fields, including psychoanalysis and behaviour therapy, amongst many others. It's important to note that, in clinical practice, most psychologist will have their own individual combination of most of those fields, even if there is a predominant line to their work, it does not exclude what they learned from others. It's also worth noticing that the study and practice of psychology diverge greatly depending on where you are, so if we are in an international ping pong malaysian forum we ought to know that the fields have a varying degree of importance. In the US, psychanalysis is much forgotten, though I've heard there is a comeback recently. I always see americans talking of it as a very distant and vague worthless thing of the past. In places like Argentina and Brazil, psychanalysis is flourishing as of now, in Europe it's also more common, though I'm not sure on details.

Psychanalysis is very misunderstood and it is a practice that is much different from other treatments, it doesn't even consider itself "therapy" in some sense. It started out in the struggle of doctors on what to do with people that were otherwise normal functioning citizens but then there were spasms, nonsensical fantasies, speech problems, shitting themselves and so on, mainly women. Stuff that would be called demonic posession in other times, but that people were treating with just putting them aside from society. Freud was a doctor amongst others trying different things out with varying degrees of success. He met with Charcot in France and saw that hypnosis could relieve people of their symptoms, at least for a while. He tried for some time, but was terrible at it and was also bothered that, first, it doesn't explain the cause of the symptom, second, the effects fade away. But that led him to hypothesizing of about somewhat of a dual relationship inside people, that sometimes made them do things or feel things they didn't really want to do and feel, which is really a very basic initial complaint. Then the mentor of Freud, Breuer, talked to him about the case of Anna O., who couldn't drink water and so on, and, after trying several things, simply by asking how it started and letting her go on about the connections in her mind about her problem, there was a gradual development off the symptom and Anna herself described it as the "talking cure".

cont

cont

Freud went on to develop on what went on there. He started asking that to his patients, which worked to a certain extant, but he realized people resist that question, they simply can't remember no matter how, or even when they answered it, it was half-answer, half-dodge, they were bothered by it, maybe changed subject, etc. All the while writing about it and trying to figure out how that worked. He realized that every answer is the answer, that is to say, a moment of silence, a spasm, a lie, a change of subject were all indeed addressed to the question. It didn't matter exactly where the conversation went, it was on point. Hence the importance of slips of tongue, or the role of jokes, the way we create fictions or repeat what others say. He let his patients speak freely, asking nothing but just "speak". But people are bothered by his presence and it blocked people, constantly reading his facial expressions and him, too, missing the words the patients were saying because of how they "held" themselves in their posture. So now they lie down facing back to him, they can hear each other better and pay more attention to the words, they are both less tense.

While doing this and offering no resistance to what the patient was saying, which doesn't mean he didn't talk to his patients, just suspending his immediate judgement about each sentence, the very patients begin guessing and paving what's next, developing the conversation on their own. They kind of go on seeking the analyst, but the analyst does not dive into any answer other than making the patient hear oneself, hear in which way one is seeking that, in which way one relates to that new presence of the analyst and just the job "to speak". To go through that relationship, the patients emulate the ways they have learned to talk to other people, they project the way they ask for things towars the analyst. This is something that quite often the patients themselves point out, when they notice they are talking like someone they know, or when Freud asks about the origin of a certain term in reference to something, and that origin story is on point on the origin of the symptom, etc. He calls it transference.

cont

cont

In listening to his patients he noticed several things. He noticed the importance of one's past, specially one's childhood in forming how one relates to the world, thus the importance of one's parents as well. Think Vienna at the turn of the XX century. He also noticed that the syptoms were coming mostly from problems that the individuals face with society, hence why psychanalysis is not simply about something that happends in one's mind (some argue not even that), but about how one relates to prohibition, impossibilities, misunderstandings, politics, the love of others, the spite of others, their city, their social position and so on. The patients problems were quite often dillemas, a place in society they are forced to take, and so on. Something that could only appear if a doctor were to stop and listen. The hysteric women he was treating were acting in accordance to the extremely moralist society around them at that time. To psychanalysis this changes over time and place, though the structure is more or less the same. A common reading of today's world sees a depressed society in face of an obligation to enjoy, something which Zizek talks about frequently.
This puts psychanalysis in a different place. It is no longer something that serves simply to treat the problem in the way it came in, but to observe and perhaps transform how it is formulated too. It is an ethical practice, in the sense that it gives room for the patient to work with what he is going to do with his desire, or with the way he is going to talk to other people or to himself. It neither deflects the problem by putting the patient aside or repress his behaviour further, nor does it advice him to do only what he wants. It takes that problem into the conversation, it brings the responsibility to the subject that is split for every choice. It does not normalize the situation, it does not try to put the problem under the carpet.

Freud's theory, just like any theory, is an invention. A tool that one can use to explain the world. The realm of psychanalysis is integrated with philosophy, literature and fiction-making, familiar relationships and social sciences, linguistics, history, to any cultural manifestation like arts and religion. It's not the theme of psychanalysis itself, but things which are necessary to take into consideration when listening to how we talk about the world, and in fact, they are themselves ways in which we talk to the world.

Freud's disciples took on different approaches and diverged from Freud, but also could not exist without him. Jung focuses on religion, myth, multicultural reccurences, one's relationship to the unknown and to death, etc. Reich speaks of power relationships, about bullying and stuff. Anna Freud developped ego psychology. But all of them listened to their patients and were open to really hear what they were bringing in.

cont

It was with Lacan that psychanalysis took a different turn. Lacan knew a lot about a lot of things, including linguistics, social sciences, philosophy and theater. He developped on what Freud was doing by taking a more profound step on the grammar of it, of desire, of transference, of power, on the structure of it and where it fails too, as it is through this gap that is always there, between oneself and the world or oneself and one's desires, or between what one says and what one wanted to say, that resides the reason while we keep striving. He broke with the psychanalysts of the time, he was a black sheep. And he was already criticizing the way psychologist were categorizing disorders of the mind at the time, the DSM, which is something more and more people are critical of today.

Psychanalysis is something of its own. It is not in contradiction with any development of the other psychologies or of neurology in terms of what is being discovered, but it differs greatly on how to approach the issues that appear.

pic related is especially appropriate for Veeky Forums
what do you mean by respected? i don't give a shit about arbitrary evaluations according to someone's autistic criteria for respectability. It's possible to do good statistically rigorous research in all areas of psychology, and it's also possible to do shitty poorly designed experiments in these same areas.

awesome, but idk what he has to do with psychology

Most commonly researched are probably organisational or abnormal/clinical, but there's no way to objectively measure the most respected branch in psychology anymore than there is in medicine, and I'm just guessing from where most of my reading is focused. No-one goes aroung saying they respect cardiology more than neurology or dermatology, they're all just fields studying different parts of the same thing.

>Erich Seligmann Fromm (March 23, 1900 – March 18, 1980) was a German social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was one of Founders of The William Allison White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology in New York City and was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory

People like you make Veeky Forums worth visiting, thanks man.

Beautiful overview of psychoanalysis. All of psych students that I've spoken to have told me that he is a pseud though. Why do people dislike him?

I don't really know what you mean by pseud.

That what he's saying isn't reliable or really well regarded anymore is what I assume he means.

maps of meaning

Surfing uncertainty is an interesting new book in cognitive science

nice. now drop us some book recs

Freud is to psychology as Karl Marx is to economics. The only people who read him and take him seriously are people who don't really study the field.

Because I fucking said so