Is psychology a science or a humanities topic? I tried posting in Veeky Forums and they all told me to come here

the study of social functioning within humans. completely arbitrary depending on your social context and subjective experience. desu you're a fag for being interested in it more than neurology. best places for a thread on it are probably soc, r9k, or int or something like that. Go post one of those MB personality test threads.

I think you will be remembered for your horrible spelling. Both economy and psychology have debunked stuff that sadly seems to stick around, but they are maturing.

but i dont have the grades for medicine

You are the faggot. The MB personality test is something which has been debunked by psychology. Though I personally think the Big Five model which is now a thing isn't that great either. As cogntiive bias contradicts self-reporting questionares.

how does a field of science that doesn't use material for evidence admitting it's wrong make me the faggot?

The reason you're a faggot is because you seem to dismiss a whole field of science desu. Please do continue to explain.

What about intelligence? It's studied by psychologists.

everything psychology attempts to explain by guessing, neurology can eventually explain with tangible evidence. social sciences aren't science, they're entirely subjective, abstract fields. I have equal reason to accept Lord of the Rings as a history book.

It's not a science

In all honestly, I think that psychology does suffer from subjectivity. But to dismiss it and calling neurology a panathea... There is no point arguing with you.

>everything psychology attempts to explain by guessing
You don't know the first thing of behaviorism, cognitivism, psychometrics, neuropsychology or social psychology.
You don't think neurologist employ intelligence assessment instruments developed by psychologists?

Maybe it is me, but so far what I've gathered on intelligence doesn't satisfy me. Only thing what was interesting was the concept of crystalized and fluid intelligence. Look it up desu.

because psychology attempts to explain results of the brain, and neurology is tangible, observable facts behind how the brain works, everything that psychology tries to touch through it's opinions is underneath the umbrella of hard neuroscience. we simply don't have the accumulated data and/or technology at this time to explain social behavior through identified cognitive patterns or arrangements.

In the mean time while we wait for technology to catch up, we can speculate, or we can pretend that specific people's opinions are facts based on the opinion that their opinions are better than other people's opinions.

>intelligence assessment instruments
You mean tests based in linguistics? You're literally treating somebody's opinion of how intelligence works as a science.

>or we can pretend that specific people's opinions are facts based on the opinion that their opinions are better than other people's opinions.
This sounds like psychology though.
if society was treating it as pure speculation, there wouldn't be so many, if any at all, jobs in the "field"

Psychology major from a nordic country here. 100% employment rate on the field feels comfy a f. Stay mad STEMfags. I'd also like to bring up the study on perception, that is a very important and scientific part of psychology that doesn't completely rely on neuroscience.

I had Weschler's Scale in mind. Do you understand the concept of "latent constructs"? "Factor analysis"? While there is some dissent over the construct of intelligence, there is strong empirical evidence for the existence of a g factor.

>In the mean time while we wait for technology to catch up, we can speculate, or we can pretend that specific people's opinions are facts based on the opinion that their opinions are better than other people's opinions.
You speak as if the fields are worlds apart. Hebbian learning, for instance, is the physiological analog for behavioral conditioning.

except all perception is a result of the nervous system and is actually covered by neuroscience.

top kek
psychology is one of the highest unemployed fields here

Your separation is arbitrary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience

>Cognitive neuroscience is an academic field concerned with the scientific study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes. It addresses the questions of how psychological/cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both psychology and neuroscience, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuropsychology.[2] Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science coupled with evidence from neuropsychology, and computational modeling.[

>there is strong empirical evidence for the existence of a g factor.
Am skeptical of that, can you give any sources?
t. Not a STEMfag.

These concepts don't actually matter though because they're based on opinions. No matter how scientific you try to make your opinion sound, it is still your opinion that tests you linguistically construct can be used to measure or observe your opinion of what intelligence is. I cannot stress enough how many opinions are involved here, it's asinine to treat something with so many subjective bases as a valid method of explaining reality.

Also

>Do you understand the concept of "Factor analysis"?
>Literally: "Do you know that people explain stuff using reasons?"

>These concepts don't actually matter though because they're based on opinions
Statistics are opinions? Observable behavioral patterns are opinions? Observable neurophysiologic correlates are opinions?

Did you even understood the meaning of Hebbian learning? Do you actually know the first things of neuroscience?

cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/ptopic?topic=intelligence-g-factor
This good for you?

The first paper is from 1999. While that does not necessary discredit it, I rather have something updated. I will take a look myself, but I did that before some time ago and wasn't sold on the idea.

Certain fields focus on the observable and are definitely doing things in a true scientific approach. We can observe behavioral patterns. We can observe cognitive patterns.

Approaches like psychoanalysis and humanism are most certainly not. These rely on unfalsifiability, muh feels, or usually both. These aren't sciences. At all.

Skinner did nothing wrong.

If you scroll down you can read how they dissect the original work. Some of it was discarded or considered less relevant to the study of intelligence but the cornerstone, g, remains.

Sort of like Darwin's Origins of Species. Nobody takes it as the ultimate work on evolution, but it basically established a whole line of research that propagated itself into current literature, the central idea remains.

You're not thinking about how stuff works very thoroughly. Look at it this way.

I can write down three questions on a piece of paper.
>"Do you like trucks?"
>"Are you sad?"
>"Do you want chocolate milk right now?"
Now I can line up a hundred people from a homeless shelter, and ask them these questions, and record the results.

I now have statistics on observable behavioral patterns.

According to you, this is science.

>desu you're a fag for being interested in it more than neurology
Nigga psychology and neurology are highly related, have you ever even heard of neuroscience?

Astrology and cosmology have quite a bit in common as well.

psychology is for people who are too dumb to into neuro

If all these STEMlords and their stupid comments are any indication of the g factor, I think we have a problem.

I'm a Psychology major in undergrad, seeking to go forward with a master's in LCSW or other degree, breaking into counseling/therapy.

Generally, I just call myself a pseudoscience major. Some folks within the major get legitimately offended to a laughable degree when I call it that. Shit, it's just banter based in truth.

I'm only in the program to obtain a shot at my desired employment, really. Of course I do find it all interesting, but I've not been highly impressed by my undergraduate courses so far.

>I now have statistics on observable behavioral patterns.
No, you just have raw data.
Assuming the answers were given in scales, you could make a correlation study between the three variables. But you are missing a theory that can explain phenomena, you aren't providing a model with predictive power, you haven't the smallest grasp of what scientific research entails.

What you do have there is a strawman. You are misconstruing one position to make it easier for you to argue against, because you can't address the actual points of the opposition.

According to you, that is an argument.

the field is held back by ethics and politicization.

Considering that I'm a passionate political conundrum (read: jackass) of lolbertarian adherence to the non-aggression principle coupled with nationalism and elements of eugenics, I can't fucking wait.

Seriously, I really can't wait. That ain't sarcasm. I'm not a dumbass that shares my more unacceptable beliefs with strangers or clients, but I feel as though I'll be doing my duty filling more of a non-traditional but highly individualist counselor.

We'll see how I make out.

And individualist was a shitty word for what I intended to convey. 11 hour graveyard shift will do that to you.

I'm trying to gently say that I'm a compassionate and empathetic person without the usual left-leaning ideology, and there's a need for that.

Not at all. Hilariously enough you're morphing my argument into something it isn't in order to call it a straw man which is a straw man in itself.

As soon as I design a model with predictive power and test a hypothesis after asking the same three questions to another hundred homeless people, I can develop it into a theory and according to psychology this is science. I already explained it this way in my first post but I guess you either don't have the depth of reading comprehension required to understand that, or you base your self esteem in being right and are making ironic straw man arguments in order to defend your ego. Either way I'm calling bullshit in both of those directions, just chill out. All data, theories and research involved in psychology is based entirely on opinions, and this is what separates social science from science. By literal definition.

So tell me you filthy pleb, the works of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky are also just opinions? You never really looked into psychology right? You've seen a few of those horrible pop science news stories that are called psychology and conclude the whole field is like that.
Ugh.

No, don't try to turn this around. You made up an hypothetical scenario which would never translate into an article on a peer-reviewed scientific journal and you behave as if it was in any way representative of actual work done today in psychology.

It would be like someone arguing that neurology isn't a real science, while using some phrenology model as an example.

Actually comment on something upheld by the general academic community, like the principles of conditioning, g factor, the developmental stages of logical thinking according to Piaget, etc.

Or actually address the overlap between psychology and the rest of the neurosciences.

Complete bullshit