Should psychology be considered a science? If not, why? If so, kill yourself...

>we don't need to know
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>psyche
psyche /ˈsaJki/ is the totality of the human mind, conscious and unconscious.

Quit using common definitions when they do not apply to the topic of discussion. kthx

yeah that's where the word comes from, it doesn't mean that psychologists believe that they're studying the soul

Most sciences believe they are studying the thing they have named themselves to study, instead of pulling a bait and switch on the poorly educated.

Can you name a single legitimate science that doesn't even believe in what it is named after and just chases the results of other sciences?

I guess I didn't realize the definition of psychology didn't apply to the topic of psychology.

Can you name a science that has come to light in the last century, faggot? And more accurately one that demands public interface with commonly accessible and understandable terms?

>I had to google the definition of psyche to come to the conclusion that an incomplete definition which is not the accepted definition for a given field is the accepted field because well frankly I don't understand language or the fact there are varying and even field specific definitions for common words.
Good bait, man.

Neurology.

>Things are universally accurate, truthful, and scientific as long as they are accepted by a group that claims authority and will do whatever it takes to control you and infiltrate the highest levels of your government even if their history and name makes fuck all sense in modern context.

Nope, think again. "dendrites, neurotransmitters, synapses, selective channels, protein folding" That's not language for the public nor the patient.

> chemistry
> the study of how to make gold

> physics
> the study of medicine that purges

> calculus
> how to count on an abacus

One more reason biology is the best science

Neither is psychological language, things like autism are just easier to explain with external common language because they are vague and poorly defined with no direct physical basis to begin with.

>I'm a bad troll and I opt to out myself here on the basis that I have been out-trolled by the master.

Psychology is the study of outward behavior initialized in the complex neural network of the brain. It does not necessarily need a physical basis. Psychological vocabulary can be understood by anyone with a high-school reading comprehension, whereas in neurological texts you need quite a bit of training in biology and chemistry to grasp the finer nuances.

At least you finally admit you only pretend psychology is a science to troll and even its subfields don't use the same definitions or draw the same conclusions, so with that you have reached an impasse and gone as far as your trolling can bring you.

A) You don't understand greentext
B) Tinfoil hats belong in >>/pol/

Maybe I am confused, does your greentext indicate you to be the bad troll or the master troll?

I thought you were claiming to be the master, but I understand why you would recognize that you are a failing bad troll (I assumed you were insulting me though) either way though you admitted you are a troll because you can only speculated on my sincerity while you know for a fact your own status to be trollish.

white ppl amirite guis ?

...

I like that you admit that psychology can't keep up with neurology, biology, or chemistry, but you still fail to see that those other sciences are only more complex because they develop their own metrics and jargon through physical explanations rather than using vague common highschool level semantics to create a series of overlapping spectrum to catch all known qualities.

You seem to have a narrow view of psychological research. There are many computational and conceptual models of psychological phenomena that are not "high school" level semantics, whatever that means. Regardless, why make something needlessly complex so only PhDs can understand? Especially as it pertains to the brain and behavior, which everyone has and should try to understand for their own sake.

>makes a deliberately provocative thread
>small dicked wannabe psych major who thinks he's much smarter than he is

Reality can be needlessly complex, the brain is one of those things that has no many features it does take years to understand, pretending you know all the answers with some pretty superstition just because its too uncomfortable to acknowledge humanity's collective ignorance is the basis of religions like psychology, high school level semantics was the supposed selling point of psychology versus neurology.

to
what
end

>what is neuropsych

I've literally read every reply you've posted in this thread, and I refuse to believe you're not trolling. You sound like everything you know about the field comes from wikipedia and your middle school textbook.

Fuck off back to /r9k/ or whatever autistic board you came from

you
cant
know
nuthin

Its similar to cryptozoology, bullshit pseudoscience piggybacking of off legitimate results.

You Should admit your ignorance and leave the real science to scientists. Psychology does not need a selling point. As said above, fuck off troll.

There's research psychology, and then there's clinical psychology. As a rule, clinical psychology is generally 10 to 20 years behind research psychology. But research psychology is totally a science.

The relationship between research psychology and neurology is a lot like the relationship between macroeconomics and microeconomics - one day we'll get to a point where we have such a comprehensive understanding of neurology that we'll be able to know exactly what's going on and why in people's heads, in a very quantifiable way. But we're still a few years off from that, we still don't understand how the brain works exactly. Because of that we have to sort of work backwards if we're to understand how to affect people's thinking and psychological states.

Similarly, for a very long time in economics it was impossible to bridge micro and macroeconomics, so we could understand how things worked on the micro level in a purely mathematical way, but if we wanted to make big sweeping statements about the economies of nations we had to step away from such minute observations and make bigger statements, and come up with bigger theories that were harder to test.

Now we're coming to the point in economics where we can phase out macroeconomics, and apply microeconomics to a mass scale. This removes the need for flimsy theories. The same thing will one day happen to neurology/psychology, but we're not quite there yet.

Cognition has all the hallmarks of an emergent property. I'm not convinced that knowing how every neuron interacts on a chemical level will help us understand cognition. To some extent there will always be the black box problem when it comes to higher level psychological processes.

Well, but it's the same problem regarding biology and chemistry. I mean you cannot just extrapolate living organisms from chemistry in a trivial way.

What are X-rays?
What are microscopes?
You biologists would've been fked without us physicists

I have admitted that neurology doesn't yet know everything, but that is no reason to quit trying to pursue physical science and just start assigning numerical values to your feelings while getting addicted to drugs.

You know not all psych research is affective right? In case you don't know what that means, studies of feelings and emotion fall under the purview of affective psychology, which makes up a small part of overall psych research. The same goes for pharmacological research.

Neuroscience, a branch of psychology, should absolutely be considered a science.
Psychology as a whole is more akin to anthropology and should be considered a soft science, which it is.

I've started studying psychology this year, and while it isn't enough time to judge everything about the career itself (because the first year is always the crappiest due to theory), all the teachers I've met so far can't stop talking about human subjectivity and how nothing is objective, they're also extremely skeptical about the natural sciences and most of them hate positivism. Some of them bring up quantum physics to state that the "observer changes reality", and one of them says that reality is made of words.

We're also being taught philosophy, and so far all the teacher has taught us is the usual "you can't know nuffin", "it's all subjective" and "what if there's no truth" stuff.

Does this happen commonly at other universities? Is psychology really taught this way?

Psychology is a pseudoscience based on superstition and weak correlations.

>most of them hate positivism
Positivism is dead, though.

It's biology

Are you implying smoking is bad or something?

lol no

I can't speak for all universities, but the one I'm at has had a strong foundation in natural sciences. Psychology here is closer to the behavioral neuroscience end of the spectrum mapping various brain nuclei in relation to behavior, learning and memory tasks, etc. Other places have more emphasis on the social, clinical end of the spectrum.

The sad reality is that thanks to schmucks like Freud, psychology has been set back in the public field for at least a century. Psychology has every potential to be a hard science that provides much needed systems level explanations and models for neuroscience, but the public perception is that it's just some pseudoscience mumbo jumbo unconscious bullshit. Even worse, thanks to the public's ideas about psychology, Freudian ideas are still actively practiced in places like New York.