Is psychology considered science on Veeky Forums or would you guys say its more of a humanities/social study?

>would then psychology be considered a real science?
I don't think anyone would disagree on this.
>Then why don't we just seperate that field (or you know, just consider it seperated)?
I don't know. There's a huge practice of clinical psychology that is mostly bullshit. I remember going to therapy as a kid, for teenage angst reasons or bad grades or some shit like that, and the guy had a little bobble head of Freud and loved him. There's actually praise for Freud in the field of clinical psychology, despite his "contributions" being mostly pseudoscience.

We don't celebrate alchemists in the physical sciences.

These are the jobs that dominate the psychology market:
work.chron.com/indemand-jobs-psychology-22288.html

Here's some more statistics about their work force. Figure 3 is quite interesting.
apa.org/workforce/publications/13-dem-acs/index.aspx

I see you reasoning.
What do you think of cognitive psychology and cognitive science (as its own blend-up field)?

>There's a huge practice of clinical psychology that is mostly bullshit. I remember going to therapy as a kid
I couldn't agree more.

I remember going to a therapist too because of a relative's death and my parents were worried about my mental health. Psychotherapists actually think you can apply the same "therapy" to every patient that has undergone similar circumstances in their lives. Needless to say the "therapy" had no positive effect, and my parents trusted me and let me from having to go for more therapy... the biggest waste of time I have ever participated in. Therapy is pure pseudoscience, complete bullshit.

I honestly don't know anything about it. All I can say is that the most it overlaps with biology/biochemistry or neurochemistry, the more seriously I would consider the results. The brain is a chemical and electrical machine, and to analyze it without considering those components is probably not going to teach you anything.

I just know it's hard to conduct a psychological experiment while taking a brain activity scan. Those machines are huge.

Topic is about psychology, not psychiatry.

Psychiatry at least tries to be scientific, and they deal with real shit like schizophrenics. Psychology on the other hand is just feel-good bullshit with methaphoric interpretations and shit.

what about computational data/information? Where you construct a "brain" and run it through tests?

>devil trips
I didn't even know they were capable of doing such a thing. As far as I know, the computerized model of the brain is still very simple. I can't imagine they can program even .001% of the neurons of the human brain.

At least not with a reasonable number of processors:
extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors

Haha, riiiight. It's all feel-good bullshit, which by implication makes it worthless.

Because a persons attitude and outlook on life has nothing to do with their success or well-being, so it's pointless trying to help or change someone with a negative one, amirite? At least those psychiatrists give them some nifty pharmaceutical drugs which they barely know why or how they work after meeting the patient once for a half hour. They are the true heroes indeed!

... And attention, perception, memory, decision making, etc. Right, just feelgood bullshit.

Psychology is a science. It just lacks the strong reductionism you see in physics, chemistry, and (to a lesser extent) biology. If youbhave two studies each saying something and you infer it's because of a third factor, you conduct an experiment and have a new finding. Contrast this with, say, a biologist researching how water travels inside a plant and a physicist studying pumps. You can explain the former directly by the latter (since theres an analogy between pumps and plants). In psychology sometimes you'll have a finding, say, that lower pre-frontal cortex activation is assosciated with issues and attention and find drinking lowers pre-frontal cortex activation and can make an appropriate inference, which is all fine and dandy, but when you start trying the same thing at levels where our powers of reduction are really low (eg, the social level) things get very difficult and you dont have a common language of reduction.

how to troll Veeky Forums
it's not even up for debate

literally means nothing. it just means not much is understood about it

yeah that's not how it works.

Psychology is like trying to measure molecules with a meter stick. Its heart is in the right place, but the tools aren't precise enough to back up the claims they make.

Psychology could be a science, but currently it is suffering from a woman problem. There are way too many women in psychology, dragging down the intellectual level of discourse due to their lack of self-awareness, lack of abstract reasoning and lack of academic ambition.

they tell you no, but they act like its yes sometimes.

have i answered your question?

It's applied chemistry

This. Psychology in its current state is jsut a watered-down version of neuroscience. It is just neuroscience for n00bs plus some braod fields suffering severely from replication problems aka nonsense. I really wish I studied something other than this joke field.

Even better:
(1) why do we have this bait thread every single day?
(2) why do people keep falling for this bait EVERY SINGLE DAY?

no its not
like literally how did you even come to that conclusion?

how did everyone here come to that conclusion?

>"The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context." (Oxford definition)

>hay guize, the consciousness is literally a bunch of chemicals and biololigcal processes (common Veeky Forums consensus)

>biology is just applied chemistry (memestick figure's purity chart)

it follows that psychology is applied chemistry

Neuropsychology, yes, is a science. Psychiatry, yes, is + chemistry.

Psychology, empirically based, but also subject to conjectures because there is no IRREFUTABLE definitive system as per diagnoses i.e. they're all subject to change.

So it's not as much a /concrete/ science.

>I just know it's hard to conduct a psychological experiment while taking a brain activity scan.

You are misinformed. Psychology frequently uses , PET, MRI, EEG, TMS, etc. in their experiments. Probably a majority of the work in a journal like JEP uses some form of brain scanning.

The tendency to see the human brain as an information processor and the mind as an artifact of incoming information springs from poor thinking. Akin to 18th century thinking that saw the Universe as clockwork or 19th century thinking that saw the body as an engine.
From an engineering point of view the human brain is a receiver, not a processor.
Brain imaging has allowed us to see what parts of the brain are active while performing certain functions, the whole 'science' of neuroscience comes from measurements made that way.
A person experienced in meditation has been imaged showing zero activity in the region of the brain where we differentiate self and other. Stimulation of the same region with electromagnets has allowed the majority of subjects to report a spectral presence in an empty room.
We haven't even really started on the human brain/mind yet, we need to admit we're chipping rocks and hooting at the shapes we make.

>A person experienced in meditation has been imaged showing zero activity in the region of the brain where we differentiate self and other.

>>/x/

Its more related to science than the other social studies but I wouldnt call it science. Neuro science or medical study is the real science equivilent

I've always saw psychology as a service such as in therapy unless it is used in edgy experiments.

It is strange that this misconception of a hard line between neuro and psych persists.

You wouldn't, but scientists do. Fortunately you're not in charge of NSF.

I wonder, all those who consider anything but chemical/electral study of brain as social science, do you also consider ethology as a "non-science"?

I have no idea where it comes from. It's astounding how many people think psychology = Freudian psychiatry.