Why is psychology still seen as a major area of science? Is it just for people who want an easy science degree?
We have Neuroscience, Machine Learning and to a lesser extent Psychiatry, which do the same thing as psychology in a more empirical manner. A majority of psych experiments could not even be replicated.
What's the point, Veeky Forums? It feels like having alchemy as a modern science because it's like chemistry but simplified.
>Psychiatry
Psychiatry is a field that should be scrubbed right out of existence.
chemist here, I fucking hated that letter in my 1st year
Kind of amazed we still consider psychiatry a medical degree, even though psychology is not considered one.
It made sense before MRI, when the brain was a mystery machine, but now it's a meme field.
So that women can feel smart and intelligent.
Evolutionary psychology has been emerging over the past couple of decades, only really getting up and running in the past five years or so.
It is purging the world of the standard social sciences model of psychology and Freudian reckonings.
Psychology has been a giant meme field for far too long, but it is finally being reformed.
Essentially, the best thing to do is ignore any humanities based psychology and anything that isn’t informed by evolutionary processes.
Of course, look at the data and for repeat experimentation, as well as systematic reviews that focus on the efficacy of methodology and statistical analysis used within any given selection of studies concerning a particular hypothesis.
You mean to tell me that the *average* IQ of Physics majors at US colleges is over 130? Sounds like bullshit.
it's IQ approximation based on GRE score or some shit.
I'm sure it would be lower if they did actual iq tests.
But why did you post that retarded picture?
It looks like the Big Friendly JarJar
But then again, that's a halfway point between ethology and evolutionary biology.
Psychology as we know it today is a mix between anecdotal evidence trying to be proven and oversimplifying the human brain into simple cause and effect.
Psychiatry is a valid medical profession because it operates with a mixture of neuroscience and psychology. Fuck off.
psychology / psychiatry exist because people need it, and they need it to improve a lot. Science fields don't exist so that you can jerk off on your degree on Veeky Forums
This, also no way philosophy majors are that high
What are some modern theories of the mind and its basic concepts nowadays? I've only heard of behavioral and cognitive psychology.
Is there any psychologists that still give a shit to Jung's and Freud's theories?
we have this thread every day and the responses are nearly always the same
because psychology is interesting af. you dont wanna know why you behave and think the way you do?
No.
I mean, I personally don't care about that.
BSc and MSc in Psychology here, AMA fellow Redditors.
Well, the issue at hand is that the conclusions and hypotheses given mostly tend to be bullshit. I mean, I know we don't give much of a shit about Freud anymore, but there was a time when a lot of people seriously believed all men wanted to fuck their mothers and kill their fathers. Its all memes because none of it can be empirically proven. That's not to say that at least some of psychology isn't valid, but...
ur science sucks and cant explain shit cause its stuppid enpiricism
>what is qualia
Not a question.
What do you do now?
My MSc hasn't actually finished yet, I've still got to hand in my dissertation (although I think I get a passing grade no matter what grade I get on it, which is why I said I have the MSc). So I'm technically still a student, and working part-time as a barman. I've applied for several jobs as a research assistant, hopefully I can get one of those for a few years while I decide whether I want to become a professional psychologist (which would require a doctorate) or do something else.
>A: "psychology is bullshit [at what it sets out to do]"
>B: "you dont wanna know why you behave and think the way you do?"
just add "omg what is wrong with you, i feel for you, this must be caused by some repressed traumatic experience" and you've got a classic psychological-scientific method of proving one's hypothesis
This thread is painful to watch. Psychology has serious problems but once in a while it has profound insights.
why does that make this thread painful to watch?
does it trigger your repressed traumatic experiences when you were faced with the reality of the fact that psychology is a meme?
the complexities of the inner workings of the brain are not know to very great extent. So much so that there is a plethora of data without 100% definitive backings. This is why it is such a joke. However it is still very important to attempt to learn about this, in fact it could lead to either some very good things or some very bad things to happen.
>people seriously believed all men wanted to fuck their mothers and kill their fathers
Veeky Forums posters love talking about stuff they haven't read
The oedipus complex is probably the most misunderstood Freudian concept out there.
Psychology is just for people who want an easy major (and thankfully employers know this). It's not even a real science.
>A majority of psych experiments could not even be replicated.
Fun fact 1: The study you're referring to also showed that the level of replication was on par with physics (same number, but with less precision).
Fun fact 2: The number was even lower in comparable replication studies in medicine.
Let's get rid of medicine.
Psychology is gender studies tier. Its required for fast food workers so they know how to smile and communicate with customers.
Why is Veeky Forums so obsessed with the problem of demarcation? It's a rite to ignorance.
As a physics major myself, no way my IQ is that high. I'm a literal tard with a degree.
>psychology as a study of being sociable
You're right in that psychology and neuroscience have a significant overlap, though I suppose the difference might be that psychology has the additional focus of behaviour? Neuroscience may do it
as well but not on such a broad level
Neuro experiments are generally psych experiments with an added dependent variable of neural imaging data. The overlap is almost total. You can learn a lot about how the brain works without imaging. As for replication, at least the field is policing itself. Plus only a few journals have been examined for replicability. As mentioned above, other fields fail in replicability as well. Psych research is just more salient to the public because everyone has a brain, despite evidence to the contrary on this website.
Evolutionary psychology interprets any phenomena in human behavior as indications of evolutionary advantages. It uses evolution to explain things like why humans find certain traits attractive etc.
As nice as that sounds, evolutionary psychology is only a means to rationalize behaviors using an evolutionary framework. Anything, if pondered long enough, can be rationalized in this way.
It is confirmation bias run rampant.
In science when there's a hypothesis there must be an experiment that either ends up supporting or contradicting that hypothesis.
Evolutionary psychology can fail at that because it is impossible to test those rationalizations based on an evolutionary framework.
See although evolution does play a huge part in human psychology, it would be naive to consider that it is the only variable that matters.
We live in a modern society that some of our instincts don't play an active role in our survival. Instead it is social psychological phenomena that influence us more.
Of course that's not to say social psychology is without imperfections. While theories like cognitive dissonance are vastly supported, other theories fail to be reproducible. Part of the reason is because it is difficult to control all the variables- variables which are a direct results of the complex dynamics humans have with one another as both a society and individually.
My point is that no matter how nicely you rationalize phenomena and categorize, you are only rationalizing and not actually doing science.
If that weren't the case, rationalizations like the MBTI would be scientific. But we all know that isn't the case.
In science when there's a hypothesis there must be an experiment that either ends up supporting or contradicting that hypothesis.
>Evolutionary psychology can fail at that because it is impossible to test those rationalizations based on an evolutionary framework
user, you clearly haven't studied evolutionary psychology.
Pretty much every hypothesis introduced in the recently published textbooks is supported by experimental data and you can look at the efficacy of the data for yourself by following up the studies.
Oh? My mistake then. I need to read up on this.
Do you happen to know which theories in specific?
Also, this:
>Evolutionary psychology interprets any phenomena in human behavior as indications of evolutionary advantages
Is a ridiculous statement.
Anyone with a proper understanding of evolutionary theory would know that not every aspect of an animals phenotypic manifestations carry evolutionary advantages.
This is plainly obvious.
We are likely a species of spandrels galore.
In addition to this, evolutionary psychology also studies adaptive traits that may now be acting as maladaptions; for example, our penchant for sucrose and fructose rich foods.
>Instead it is social psychological phenomena that influence us more
user, the majority of our behaviours are resultant of cultural programming; however, the dominant features of our lives and structure of our societies are built upon infrastructure provided by our evolutionary origins.
I suggest you take some time to actually research evolutionary psychology and perhaps read a decent book on neodarwinian evolutionary theory, especially one pertinent to ethology.
>8212013
>Oh? My mistake then. I need to read up on this.
Well, that was very reasonable of you.
>How scientific
>Do you happen to know which theories in specific?
Yes, I know of many fascinating theories.
I'll just switch over to my laptop (from my phone).
Ok user, firstly I’ll introduce the field.
Evolutionary psychology attempts to understand the aspects of human behaviour that relate to adaptive pressures faced throughout our evolutionary history.
Hypotheses are drawn up by thinking within a neo-Darwinian theoretical framework and cross-cultural experiments are performed, in order to verify the universal aspect of any given behaviour and rule out cultural bias/ethnocentrism.
The methodological viability and statistical analysis of any given study is open to criticism; the studies can be followed up by anyone who is willing and able.
Now, while the majority of our day to day behaviours are learnt or culturally prescribed, the key factors of human life will inevitably be resultant of evolutionary programming; these factors include mating strategies, intra-sex rivalry, social prestige, dominance and resource acquisition to name a few.
So, now you have a rough idea of what the discipline is all about.
There are too many theories and hypotheses to list all of them here; however, I’ll briefly mention a few of my favourite.
It has been cross culturally demonstrated that human males prefer females with a low waist to hip ratio of 0.7.
Even among communities in which larger sized females are culturally preferred the ratio of 0.7 holds true.
Females with such a waist ratio have also been shown to have higher than average fertility, as measured by number of offspring and successful carriages to birth; these women also experience fewer pregnancy complications.
What a wonderfully tidy little theory that is.
Another example would be that of female short term mating strategy.
Females are more likely to engage in extramarital sex and have thoughts of infidelity around ovulation; females are also more likely to engage in extramarital sex with males who appear to be of high genetic quality.
That is to say: symmetrical, masculine, tall, muscular, etc.
This is covered by the Sexy Son Hypothesis and the experiments designed to test it are just brilliant.
I won’t go into them here; however, I shall recommend a book to you:
Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind – David M Buss.
It’s a great introduction to the field and very interesting.
Evolutionary is the science of 20/20 hindsight in many ways, as some aspects of it seem obvious in retrospect; however, it is a truly fascinating area of study.