Psychology is a pseudoscience

Remove all women in the field.

>For me, it should start with trashing any 'self-reported' data

I can't believe the usage of self-reporting is so wide spread in science. Self reporting is such fucking garbage.

Scan.
The.
Fucking.
Brain.

Mckenna was a philosopher you imbecil do you think before just pushing bullshit or you just naturally eject shit out of your mind too?

Sure, but I'm not sure that self report data is that common outside of social psychology. Even then, I read somewhere that socpsych is now the most improved field since the replication crisis was publicised, so I'd say the work is already being done and we just need to wait

The day Ritalin/Prozac/etc. kingpins are swinging from trees
Psych will be free

>how can we make alchemy into a genuine science again?
>Chemistry exists.
It can't, neuroscience has already started to take its place. When that happens completely, I'll be happy.

So is quantum science. Don't know why people think there's any validity to it.

seriously though who the fuck is bottom right

Honestly, user, with the state science is in these days all branches of science are becoming 'pseudoscience'. The biomedical field is already there, I'm sure chemistry and physics will follow soon enough. The abundance of grad students and postdocs who can't advance their career without publishing will fudge enough data and publish enough non-reproducible bullshit to make sure of that. It's sad, really.

>inb4 quick rundown
motls.blogspot.com/2005/06/bogdanoff-papers.html

I would say that the roots of disrespect towards psychology is that the common sense of the modern man that lacks in spirituality which is why that branch was even established in the first place. this means the society has to draw back they're level of ego aka arrogance. this is something what i could think that is really not going to happen with trans-humanists wanting the fill a whole.

what in the fuck does any of what you said mean

>The problem with IQ as a measure of intelligence is that intelligence itself is a poorly defined concept
Yup

>Don't know
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi

isnt it logically "mental calculation speed and accuracy"

jesus fuck

>reading Jung
>most of what he wrote you can map on how artificial neural networks work

they have to go back

Are we talking about a person who is seen as an intellectural individual or if the person thinks of him self as being smart?

That is the real question here, to quote Shakespeare

It should be called "human ethology" and work around chemical and evolutionary traits, like modern ethology does.
This means that everything inspired by Freud and the like should be treated like astrology

Thanks for an actual rundown, finally.

You cant and honestly why would you bother, no one who is reasonable considers psychology to be a science in any sense other than a lose application of the scientific method, This doesnt mean the field doesnt have social and personal value or interest.

Because neuroscience is not developed enough

>Freudian theory

The problem is that anyone who's somewhat respectable in psychology doesn't give a shit about Freud

Neuroscience proves that psychology isn't bullshit though. Psychotherapy causes visible changes in the brain for example.

Also if one day we are able to cure some mental illnesses by simply fixing the brain you can be sure that it will do more harm than good if there isn't anything else to take care of the patient for some time after the intervention.

And we didn't need to know about mirror neurons to understand how empathy work and can be used.

We don't have to swallow all the bullshit theories in the field but we will never replace it entirely.

>mental calculation speed and accuracy
No, because you can be intelligent but have disorders that interfere with accuracy (e.g., dyslexia) or speed (e.g., liver disorder that affects short term memory).

Psychology is already a genuine science, its both testable and repeatable (at least the legitimate stuff is) but only brainlets think that psychology as a subject is a laughing stock

social psychology and all that fucking nonsense is obviously pseudoscience, IQ is not

IQ is a real thing but most IQ tests are invalid garbage

>claims all of psychology is pseudoscience
>posts a pic of freud

Wow user, you're pretty smart!

>psychology will stop being a bullshit science when it starts doing what it has been doing the past 50 years

Postmodernists and psychoanalysts need not apply.

IQ is literally pseudoscience tho

uneducated

iq is the most studied phenomenon in all of psychology, its held up to scrutiny for the last 50 years. its fucking solid

Then how come you need a [math]\mathfrak{very high}[/math] I.Q. to understand Rick and Morty?

Mechanics are to engineers the same way psychogists are to neuroscientists.

>Freudian theory is a load of rhino doodoo some child molestation victim came up with.
Respected modern psychologists think one of three things about Freud.

>He guessed a few things right, like the unconscious and social events influencing your mental state, but his actual theories aren't helpful anymore.

>He was a biased asshole who made things up to prove his theories right, and should be considered a historical figure rather than a modern influence on psychology.

>Freud's theories are not supported by research on treatment effectiveness, except in a few rare cases when modified versions: like short-term psychotherapy on specifically trauma based unipolar depression. But CBT still does better, so why use psychoanalysis?

Then why do different iq test yield different results to someone IQ?

Musn't be an accurate way to measure intelligence.

You know absolutely nothing about the opinions of modern psychologists yet you write with such conviction.

Pure laziness.

Guessed a few things right? What remarkable luck to guess at what are now the principle tenets of psychology.

Please, what is your educational background?

Many of you think you're intellectuals, but you're not. Self reports are inherently nonsense? Yeah, let's commit only to investigate the psyche using hard biological data and throw away with the rest.

After IQ and parental socioeconomic status, conscientiousness, a Big Five trait (measured via self report) is the strongest predictor of economic success we have.

The bog brothers are actually physicists

okay so heres the deal.
What do you get when you tell a doctor to start the field of psychology?
He starts to pathologize behaviors, finding average behavior, and any deviations from it. Label them accordingly and provide solutions for people do go back to being under the apex of the bell curve.
You get people making hilariously complicated workflow charts for mental processes.
And break the person down into a computer. TO be operated, used, and "upgraded" by society.

Now go and have a literary author, like Dickens, Melville, Milton, or even Byron to compose a treatise on the mind
you see a more pragmatic view of the human condition. things aren't so much pathologized as good or bad in context of society. No you have them defining traits as good or bad in context of the story, which can only be on single slice of life from the character and not a full biography.

I wouldn't bother giving it to a philosopher becuase of their penchant to make up silly words.and anyways in kantian terms I think a writer would have the skill to synthesize his knowledge of biology/science with the need for the philosopher to abstract everything.

I know science like to to be engaged in a never ending process of reasearch hypothesis, test, and so on. However I have to note that while doing science is productive and good. The products of science are laws or theories.

The issue with psychology, human behavior and the mind is that these subjects are waaaaaay to nebulous to even think we can have some "great laws of psychology". The best we can do is just understand the brain and nerves and spinal cord in terms of their biological processes, everything else is just anecdotes or postulations.

>Freud's theories are not supported by research on treatment effectiveness, except in a few rare cases when modified versions: like short-term psychotherapy on specifically trauma based unipolar depression. But CBT still does better, so why use psychoanalysis?

i'd like to point out that psychoanalysis is helped to diagnose the patient and tell them why they are suffereing.
Sometimes people feel relief when they can finally put a cause, label or meaning to something that afflicts them. Psychoanalysis does little for treatment.
Psychotherapy,"the talking cure", however when applied correctly is more like CBT,DBT,or Human centered therapy.

theres a difference between knowing you have anxiety and treating your anxiety.

FYI:
nobody knows how psych meds work.
they have a guess. but nothing is proven.

>falling for the copypasta

...which will never happen, if only for the fact that you can't always spot meaningful patterns at such a low level of analysis.