People unironically believe the mind exists

>people unironically believe the mind exists
>people unironically believe thinking, feelings, and emotions cause behavior
>people think that free will exists
>people unironically think that Freud was a good influence on psychology

This is why people don't take psychology seriously.

Kek

>unironically being a physicalist despite of overwhelming evidences against you

>people unironically believe that communication between to distinct entities is possible
gfnsdk;jagbkzugvhriZgnbk;vz gvhbgz; jNBk;rsgbv:Kngwk;Hbswrnhzgnp
Snb
eanb ZDS nbzdnbJhvSghvjs'gjorgzr
gnjklrgnvLSzgbvndk;frszjOUS hv'

>unironically believing in dualism

You seem like one of those people that uses flowery language to appear smarter

>unironically OP does not understand shit about psycology

Neurology fully supports the methods which physicanalists use, Veeky Forums likes to be edgy, while most of psycology studies cannot be replicated, a lot of them do, and other sciences supports their method, and guess what? It fucking worked with a fucking toon of people

If empiricism does not worth anything to you then stay to mats you autistic fuck

Neurology and anything related to biology isn't the problem with psychology so long as they don't try to make any conclusions about the mind existing or biology causing behavior. The problem comes from fields like cognitive or personality psychology that assert that non observable constructs control behavior.

I see your point, yet it is totally plausible, and by what we know it is most likely what they say...
>mind existing
Well you can go on philosofy (sorry for bad english, I am on my cellphone and english it is not my first language) what is the mind?
There are some who say it is this voice in your head, this voice is not you, and this voice can have damaging "attitudes"

If you are the watcher of this voice and not her, you may have free will to an extent, "and if the mind is actually the watcher? And the voice is your patterns that you acquired thought life?"

Well this is a complex subject, and franquily I don't have the expertise to talk about it, I am just saying it is a very complex matter, and not so simple as you are thinking

Their conclusions are not somethings pulled out of their asses

>non observable constructs
Well to us, and yet
Genes are just now beeing related to certain behaviors, if genes can control the ammount of a certain quimical being released, they are just that, non observable shit

And it is funny how freud can predict a lot on a person based on simple observation

It is field that that needs improvement? Of course

But don't regard them as shit, freud on simple empiricism predicted shit that neurology would see and prove decades latter

For instance (aedypus complex matches perfectly the first cerebral cut we can observe in the brain, and freud predicted that talking to people)

>Genes are just now beeing related to certain behaviors, if genes can control the ammount of a certain quimical being released, they are just that, non observable shit
Actually, genes are observable using the right equipment and you can make testable predictions regarding certain behavioral/biological outcomes based on genes. Albeit, only a relatively small amount of behavior can be predicted using genes. The majority of behavior is caused by environmental factors.

>people unironically believe the mind exists
>people think that free will exists
both are untestable
>people unironically believe thinking, feelings, and emotions cause behavior
semantics in the way people think and articulate
>people unironically think that Freud was a good influence on psychology
Retarded as Freud was both an extremely large and overall positive influence on psychology as he was a pioneer.

>unironically
babby's new werd

>Good influence
As opposed to what, bad influence?
You either influence a field or you don't. Freud influenced the field massively by popularizing its study and discussion.

>both are untestable
Yet many psychologists believe the mind exists regardless. Behavior is controlled by the environment, so in some sense, you can test the free will/determinism idea by demonstrating external factors controlling behavior.
>semantics in the way people think and articulate
People actually suggest thinking causes behavior, they aren't just saying that thinking is a separate type of behavior.
>Freud as a positive influence
No he isn't, he is one of the largest reasons psychologists are still "exploring" hypothetical constructs instead of trying to study behavior.

But you can send the field in a bad direction.

The mind does exist, it refers to our mental faculties.

Thinking and feelings and emotions DO cause behaviour. What sort of fucking retard are you? Any psychiatrist will tell you that emotions cause behaviour. Are you a fucking retard?

Prove that free will doesn't exist? You can't. Fucking moron. And even if the universe is just a massive chain reaction from the beginning of time, it doesn't change the fact that we can decide to do some pretty spontaneous things. People who believe they are in control of their own destiny usually do much better in life than those who think they are merely passive victims of their circumstances.

>People who believe they are in control of their own destiny usually do much better in life than those who think they are merely passive victims of their circumstances.
I think you mean that people will give themselves credit for whatever positive things have happened in their lives. Unsurprisingly, successful people tend to believe in free will, because it's more comforting to believe their success came from their own actions and choices than believing it was almost entirely luck.

>He simultaneously denies free will AND believes in luck
Seriously man, it's one or the other. You are not as smart as you think you are

When you say in some sense what you really mean is in no meaningful sense as it can only prove the mind is influenced by environment not its nonexistence. I should have expanded on what I meant by semantics, ie it doesnt matter if behaviour is triggered by envrionment directly or the environment triggers ideas which triggers behaviour. I dont subscribe to the idea that the mind is real but being an edgelord about points that are as vaporous as "is reality real" is idiotic. Finally it is bad science to dismiss all of the ideas Freud had that turned out to be correct or likely correct because of the ones that werent, while ignoring that he literally invented psychoanalysis and all of his ideas from observation. Saying he wasnt a large influence on psychology is like saying NASA wasnt a large influence on space travel.

Considering this is a board dedicated to science and tech people spend a lot of time trashing on the scientific method if it doesnt involve rigorous mathematics as evidenced by your use of "exploring". If soft scientists start claiming rigor then they deserve to be shunned, but until someone comes up with a way of applying mathematics to absolutely every field of study this is the best anyone can do.

>Prove that free will doesn't exist?
Brainlets don't understand that supernatural free will is useless and also contradicts to how we treat it. As it stands natural free will is a hard requirement for our culture.
>People who believe they are in control of their own destiny usually do much better
That's because of entropy: if one doesn't reduce entropy, nothing good happens, and entropy doesn't reduce on it's own.
wut? Luck is an external factor outside of human control no matter whether he has free well or not. Also funny how people think that bad luck is a personal trait when it literally happens independently of one's skills and decisions.

did you make this meme?
if so, what is the classic art in pic related??

>When you say in some sense what you really mean is....
If I can demonstrate that a change in the environment produces a change in behavior (which is easy to demonstrate) this suggests that the person themselves isn't causing their behavior, but rather the environmental change is.

>I should have expanded on what I meant....
But when there are two competing ideas, you should always take the one that requires less assumptions assuming they both have equal merit otherwise. Suggesting that a change in the environment produces a change in behavior requires less assumptions than suggesting that a change in the environment produces a change in thinking which produces a change in behavior.

>Finally it is bad science to dismiss all of the ideas....
Its not bad science to dismiss his idea if his methods were terrible. The bible was right about a few things, but that doesn't mean its reasonable to suggest that the Bible provides valuable insight. It just made abunch of guesses and got lucky a few times. Same applies to Freud.

I am not saying that Freud didn't have an influence on Psychology, but rather his influence was bad. He made the idea of studying unfalsifiable constructs like the ego, id, superego, unconcious, etc. popular and the fact that psychologists still believe in similar types of constructs is problematic.

>Considering this is a board dedicated to science.....
Behavioral psychology does this. They create experiments meant to produce changes in behavior by manipulating certain aspects of an organisms environment. They often do this in a laboratory setting as to ensure greater control on their subjects. Math is used with many different concepts in behavioral psychology like with the matching law or schedules of reinforcement.

>unironically being OP

wew lad