Do you hate (((psychology)))? Want it gone from your board?strawpoll.me
Do you hate (((psychology)))? Want it gone from your board? Vote it away
Evan Scott
Nathaniel Kelly
Psychology is astrology under a "science" disguise. It must go
Joseph Wright
Who are you to judge a field "inferior" to yours ?
Jace Young
I think psychology is a pretty cool guy.
He blames your parents for your problems and doesn't afraid of anything.
Aaron Turner
Psychology is not science or math hence it should not be on this board.
Cameron Barnes
A scientist
Samuel Jones
A lot of contemporary psychologists are extremely adamant that Freud and Jung are a bunch of philosophical hocus that have done real harm to the science of psychology, and that real psychology revolves around the rigorous study of human behavior and the nervous system. Even the old standard of talk therapy has been dismissed for lack of empirical evidence of its efficaciousness, and many psychologists (to say nothing of psychiatrists) have no formal training in it, instead studying pharmacology and physical procedures that can be tested and proven in the lab.
These same professionals, if they spend any time in the clinic, will nonetheless refer clients to receive talk therapy from social workers.
And so, paradoxically, while the psychologist spends his days studying hard data and developing treatments for specific and observable conditions like psychosis, the most his field can do for most people is to tell them to go lie on a couch and talk about it.
Oliver King
Psychology fags donmt really belong here unless they are studying Neuroscience on the side. Otherwise, they belong in >>Veeky Forums
Cooper Barnes
Psychology can be very interesting and can be done scientifically. The research on propaganda, brainwashing and torture methods is really good. However, psychology has been hijacked by freudomarxist bullshit and is nowadays infested with so many anti-scientific brainlets that most of it has become trash. Psychology - or academia in general - needs a cleaning. Remove all the brainlets. Introduce mandatory scientific standards. Remove political bias.
Noah Murphy
I wish less sjws with no aspirations of a real career went into this field it would have been more productive
Evan Rogers
that sounds like quackery, but it's not really psychology, it's psychotherapy
Parker Reyes
>Freud
Freud definitely was on to something with the uses of psychedelics. Too bad the scientific community is comprised of a bunch of narcissists.
Benjamin Reed
ur mum
Xavier Ward
Can you imagine a psychology board where everyone disagrees with each other thus proving how bullshit the field is?
Kevin Turner
Pic related is false, because 95% of intelligence is learned, not innate. Learned as in inherited, both genetically and in the traditional sense, from parents.
Two uneducated parents will tend to have under-average children. Two MIT parents will tend to have geniuses. Which is why education tries to reduce this gap.
>>/pol/ with your redpill please
Nathaniel Baker
>Two uneducated parents will tend to have under-average children
Pic related
Blake Carter
Did I made a mistake in English ? I'm not Indian, I'm European.
Adam Cruz
Psychology is definately a science. It proceeds through the scientific method and uses real data and experimentation to help verify results. Biology and psychology are two very important areas of study to further human progression and it saddens me to see this board disregard these subjects as "basic"; a very close minded view. One could spend their entire life studying mathematics and never run out of stuff to learn. By the same token, one could study psych for their whole life and never run out of stuff to learn. So... why all this "herp derp muh subject da best" mumbo jumbo? Why are all you supposedly smart folks so close minded? (chem major)
Kevin Sanchez
>muh 0.0001% example breaks that rule
Nope. Educated parents raise IQ highly.
It doesn't matter if the kid goes to a diamond-made school, if the parents are retarded, they will spoil the kid and he will fail eventually.
Keep deluding yourselves, stormcucks.
Jonathan Lewis
>95% of intelligence is learned, not innate
>no source
Isaac Murphy
A mathematician.
Jaxon Price
I don't think Psychology warrants its own board just because no one knows if it's a humanity or a science, there's very few threads about it on either Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums anyway.
Side note: the behavioural side of Psychology is evidently the most "scientific" , but it's not the best simply because of this.
I think psychologists should focus on predicting and understanding behaviour any way the can, including (if necessary) the methods of the old psychoanalysts. Keep in mind the unfortunate left-leaning bias in the field, and that one of the reasons Freud and Jung are treated like shit in academia is because they said things contrary to the dogma of equality.
Parker Jenkins
He won't necessarily fail, but he will have a much harder time. However, his children will be better off than him.
James Young
>The alternative
>No source
Lucas Cruz
How is an inherited trait not innate?
Jacob Sullivan
It's not innate as it's not the proper of being white, black, or a woman.
Robert Thomas
By the way, at least 20 of those 'no' votes are from me voting via Tor as to avoid the IP logging.
Asher Rogers
To be honest i don't follow your argument, but i suppose you are referring to the joint determining effect of learning and genetics on intelligence?
Josiah Ramirez
Exactly. I probably misused innate, but it's actually very hard, if not impossible, to find a definition of intelligence, and for most of those definitions, it's unclear weather or not women statistically underperform AND it's also unclear weather or not it is due to their XX chromosome or not.
Jackson Adams
Many things are highly heritable that are not innate.
e.g. religion
Luis Long
Jesus christ that brain meme got so grotesque.
Adam Miller
weeklystandard.com
>Making It All Up
Carson Reyes
This has been debunked for months now.
>news.harvard.edu
Your first clue that was a shit source should have been the line
>Direct replications are seldom attempted in the social sciences
and
>These 100 studies had cleared the highest hurdles that social science puts up.
When if fact they were 100 studies hand picked by the experimenters because they thought they would be most likely to be wrong. They then procedded to completely misrepresent how the experiment was suppose to unfold and performed them in vastly different ways. A vast majority funnily enough, were not behavioral but the more fringe subjects like personality and sexuality.
Not to mention they straight up completely got their statistics wrong.
Dominic White
the article mentions more things than just replication...
for example, that most people involved in these studies are college kids from the US
Austin Harris
classical conditioning is hard to disprove
Landon Stewart
Apparently .4 to .5 of intelligence is heritable. The number has gone down in 30 years so I have no idea what's up.
Sources:
ghr.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Hopefully they get their own board; psychology is not a science.
Benjamin Harris
Dear god, that would be the most pseudointellectual board imaginable. It would make Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums, and Veeky Forums put together look like nothing. Also at least half the threads would be race bait.
Jonathan Hill
>what is burden of proof
Brody Cook
It is probably related to the Flynn effect, the IQ of human race is constantly increasing since 20th century
Probably about more percentage of people using their biological potential through education and what not