Psychology

Psychologist here... I agree more art than science... But even a chef gets results.

Mind, it depends quite a bit on which field she goes into. There is, for instance, a world of difference between theoretical psychology and applied psychology, and the former is much closer to being a science in that it constantly seeks for observable and testable results. Their potential applications, however, don't always mesh with the real world, so psychologists in those two fields tend to look upon one another with a lot of skepticism. I, personally, find that more applied psychology works its way into being useful in theoretical psychology than the reverse, but they both benefit each other to a degree. (It's a little like pure mathematics vs. applied mathematics, save the balancing act is more often reversed... With a bit of Sun Tzu's "No plan survives contact with the enemy" factor.)

I am rather amazed at how often I see the exact same, very specific, behaviors repeat themselves, and how often the same treatment will work with some yet fail with others. Part of the problem with the field is that one can manifest a very definable condition, but the underlying causes may be entirely different from another individual who has that exact same condition. This makes sciencing things hard.

I had to take a psychology course on my 2nd or 3rd semester at my University, cant remember wich to be honest. I also occasionally research some of the claim my sister makes to review their validity.

Thanks, very useful reply. Can you give an example to what behavior patterns you constantly see? Can these observations be quantifiable?

You have never studied maths have you? You dont "observe" in math as you do in science, you use said maths to make sense of your observations. (At the most basic level)

She will become way more intellectual then you due her study. Deal with it.

Now let's not get carried away. Psych is still basically a gen ed brainlet catch all major.

Legitimate field of science but a watered down baby degree at most institutions.

Psychology is cargo cult science. It goes through the motions of using the scientific method, but it's so poorly done that the results are usually not dependable. Studies are rarely replicated, but are just taken as authoritative from the start. If someone applied a strong dose of scientific rigor to psychology, it could become a real science.

Back when I was doing intake as an intern, we kinda did an experiment regarding one (more of a survey really). I suppose it was already fairly well known, but the consistency was frightening, in that those demonstrating schizoaffective behaviors, usually due to drugs, all gave similar wrong answers to a list of common metaphors we came up with (it being well known that such individuals tend to choke on metaphors). For instance, we'd ask, "What does it mean to say, 'those who live in glass houses should not throw stones'?" and invariably we'd get some nonsensical answer about how it means one "should first grind up the stone and take it outside". Had something like 42/55 answers just like that.

We also had a problem with people drawing/carving hourglasses - like the same perfect pattern: a box with two lines inside, and always with the same directions and ratios. You could, for instance, tell they did the hourglass bits first, top to bottom, left to right, and then went around it again with a box. Never did figure that one out, and the staff had a hell of a time constantly cleaning it up. Didn't know if it was some fad, something the drug dealers were doing (though they weren't all on drugs), none of them could explain it coherently, and it didn't seem related to any of the logos the hospitals used. Just really weird really specific behavior. I've asked around, and heard about it happening elsewhere, but it's not universal.

Not the sorta behaviors you can correct, of course, those are more complex, even if you do see similar recurring patterns among them - but the metaphor thing makes a pretty solid diagnostic tell if someone is having an acute schizophrenic attack, and/or how much progress you've made towards being able to release them.

Okay, probably closer to creepypasta than what ya asked for.

Itt big bois who want to feel superior to "brainlet pseudoscience"
Math phd here who has been in the condensed matter/quantum chemistry research groups for over 6 years and teaches algebraic QFT
Shit research and papers exist in all fields, this is a combination of too many people going into science and the established system of funding/publication quotas
Psychology at a glance has a higher percentage of shit papers from what I can see
Implying inferential statistics is shit (I bet it comes from a bayesian brainlet) is admitting you don't understand stats; most of the issues arise from misinterpretation of statistical tests and models and, indeed, is widespread in psychology

In the era of easy access to what, 98% of all papers, most of the posts itt show the level of illiteracy, prejudice, and laziness of resident anons

It's a pre-science.
It adheres to the scientific method for the most part, however, it lacks a unifying paradigm.

Thats actually pretty fascinating. Sad to see were mental illness takes people.
Still, are these observations usefull to do science with them? Can you make predictions based on them?

It's a soft science. It doesn't have any laws.

As if quantum mechanics isn't pseudo science but gers shilled on here

>QFT is one of the most supported theories by observation and evidence
>pseudoscience because I don't like big words

What is an unifying paradigm exactly? Give me an example.
Frim what I know to be an unifying paradigm I really don't see how Psychology lacks that.

observation and experimentation. its a science, sorry.

I think he's been fooled into think it's pseudoscience because of all the absolute bullshit Hollywood pop-sci says about it, making it seem much more magical than it is... and I don't blame him, if he hasn't studied it.

>scientific method
No such thing.

>unreproducible data

It's a really real science it's just 80% women doing it and they have a hard time okay you fucking jerk?

>Im studying electrical engineering and I dont call myself a scientist

And you are right, engineering IS NOT science.

>Dumbass hypocrite with no supporting evidence

Does this points really need to be cleared up for some people? How the fuck would engineering be a science?

Yeah it is a science, also ask her which Starbucks she’s going to be working at once she finishes her undergraduate

It's funny how OP claims psychology isn't science, but he posted a picture of an IQ chart

Its pretty cool until you meet your fag teacher

>fag
Why the homophobia?

First line in the post is "is psychology actually a science?" So while im clearly stating my bias, im not claiming it to be a science.
Pic is there on purpose, if you dont understand why, then youre the brainlet. Not me.

Not him, but on that note, keep in mind that yes, IQ is born of psychology, and IQ scores are about as scientific as Tetris scores - and oddly, tend to correlate.

Psychology is kinda like that.

>shes as much of a scientist as a chef
a chef is more of a scientist

Jeez this stupid thread keeps coming up. Let me preface this with my response that I am making no mention whatsoever on the legitimacy of the field of psychology. Here's the definition of science.

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Therefore if you are religious, psychology is not a science as a soul is immaterial. If you believe in duality and the mind body problem, it's not a science. If you believe in pure physicalism, then the everything is predetermined and there is literally no point to the entire field of anything, but especially psychology. Psychology is not a science. It is a social science and that is ok.

Why the faggotry?

Posts like these remind me that the average Veeky Forums autist is a 20 year old undergrad and that I shouldn't get upset.

It can be, there's nothing a priori stopping us from scientifically studying the human mind. It just tends in the modern world not to be.

>wut in retardation?

>Im studying electrical engineering
>Im studying high level physics and math
you can only pick one brainlet

Isn't science, it's a science for retarded bitches who don't know nothing but talk a lot.

>Source
>statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major
>IQ estimates
Fuck off, people who reduce everything to IQ always talk about geniuses' IQ based on estimates (=guesses), because after all, if anyone has ever accomplished anything important to the world of science, their IQ must be above 140, right ?
Then they get mad when one of these scientists gives them the actual result of his test and it's 125, so they call the test fake or try to find any other excuse they can.

Psychology is a true field of science, there's just lots of pop-psy and bad-psy out there so it's hard to take seriously because you have to be wary of retards.

How im I not studying high level math and physics? High-EST level im not for sure, albeit high level I obviously am.

fuck psychology and psychologists.

Another retard that has no reading comprehension skills.
The pic is a gag. It implies that psychologist think theyre dumb themselves as their intelligence testing method ranks them as one of the lowest iq fields.
It also shows that psychologists actually have used metrics to examine phenomena which is important given that the topic at hand is psychology is if psychology is an actual science.

Isn't that an issue in a huge amount of fields though? That studies aren't replicated?

From my understanding that's more of an issue in a modern academic world in almost any field, rather than some specific issue with psych, though it is absolutely an issue there too.

Are you a high school student? I don't even mean that as an insult, but that's possibly the worst criticism of the field I've ever read.

Psych research nearly always focuses around the systematic study of the behaviour of organisms, therefore from the physical world, and by your definition, is science.

Psychology isn't about studying the soul, believing there is no mind-body problem (which is generally an assumption of modern psych) doesn't mean that everything is predetermined at all, as we know interventions can change behavioural patterns in loads of different situations.

>is psychology actually a science

No actually I'm a graduate student in chemistry. When I said soul, I assumed you understood I meant mind or being, what makes a person a person. And if you believe there is a separation between mind and body, there is no physicality. If you believe everyone is just a set of circuits which follow the laws of quantum mechanics, then the electrons do as they must. Predetermined by definition. Without free will, a separation from the physical world there is no intervention. Psychology is not aimed at understanding the universe at it's smallest levels. Not a science

Interventions would just be disturbing the positions if the circuits. Sometimes it's disturbed enough to see "change", sometimes not.

I would say that psychology is the science for the everyman. Even an idiot could get a bachelor's in psychology with enough effort.

I don't get you, determinism is exactly what makes psychology an actual field.
If people just be "crazy" on their own(m-muh freewill!) , then why the fuck are there observable recurring patterns all over the place?

yes. behaviorism, psychoanalysis, and cognitive psychology are rapidly progressing fields with quality research. You can view ncbi studies and form your own opinion, or you can keep spouting the “psychology studies can’t be replicated” meme that you saw in an infographic that one time

Psychology and assumes and depends on materialism and predeterminism. That there is no magical outside force affecting behavior and behavior is dictated solely by neurochemical cause and effect as stimulated by genetics reacting to environment (hence ye old nature/nurture debate). Sure, both the psychologist and the patient are slaves to determinism, but that simply means it is predetermined that the psychologist will change the behavior of the patient. It doesn't change anything in terms of methodology.

If the block universe is true and all our paths are set akin to grooves on a record player, it's still a path of our own making laid out by the decisions we inevitably made and inevitably will make. Free will, thus, is perfectly compatible with determinism, as those decisions and resulting interaction still shape that set-in-stone story. The only bearing it has on any science is in cosmology, astronomy, and theoretical physics. The rest of us all work in the same gravity well and relative reference frame, so it doesn't matter to us, provided we aren't using anything that requires timing anything on opposite ends of the planet down to trillionths of the second or in high orbit.

Leftist "tabula rasa" attitude has been so deeply entranched in psychology that suggesting anything even slightly deterministic is really difficult. Evolutionary psychologists in my uni get death threats etc regularly.

Psychology will get its breaktrough as a real science when determinism becomes more mainstream.

oh since asshats like are being pedantic I might specify: these problems are mainly in social psychology

>tabula rasa
>psychology
Well then something sure has changed since I got my certification... There's few concepts more antithetical to psychology than tabula rasa. Also, is right, if determinism wasn't a thing or souls were, psychology wouldn't be a thing at all - or would look a hell of a lot different. We require cause and effect, and thus we require that there be no divine interference.

So is social work the best major to get laid? Stupid easy women right?

examples of very basic statistics != applied statistics

Are economics and philosophy really at par with STEM?

Does psychology have:
>fundamental theory which is WIDELY agreed upon in the field
>experiments that can be reproduced with a low amount of error
>high degree of predictive capability
I would conjecture it falls short in at least one of these categories. If "soft science" or "social science" reaffirms your insecurities, then just call it one of those. But don't think for a second that psychology has anywhere near the predictive power of physics, chemistry, biology etc.

In my experience, that is the kind of person who majors in social work. So, probably. However, a lot of them are pretty hardline feminists too, since social work curricula tend to have overlap with other humanities classes, like sociology & women/gender studies. I would steer clear of trying to fuck those kinds of women, personally.

What exactly do you define as a fundamental theory? Hell what is the fundamental theory of biology? Regardless if I had to wager it would most likely be that there is conscious and unconscious processes that influence our thoughts and behaviors and both of these processes can be influenced by both the envirement and our genetics.

Regarding the other two, it has been shown that psychological studies are generally able to be replicated with low amounts of error thanks to the famous study autist were posting on here on how "almost half of all psy studies don't replicate" except it was found they made a huge statistal error which when fixed showed the amount of studies not shown significant would be the amount you would expect to see from random chance.

Pretty good considering the few descriptions of the replicated studies showed how piss poor they were performed and how they hand picked studies from psychology specialties that are less know for their replicability and avoided behavioral psychology like the plaque.

one fundamental theory for biology is evolution
>Regardless if I had to wager it would most likely be that there is conscious and unconscious processes that influence our thoughts and behaviors and both of these processes can be influenced by both the envirement and our genetics.
wild conjectures are not theories
>Regarding the other two, it has been shown that psychological studies are generally able to be replicated with low amounts of error thanks to the famous study autist were posting on here on how "almost half of all psy studies don't replicate" except it was found they made a huge statistal error which when fixed showed the amount of studies not shown significant would be the amount you would expect to see from random chance.
i want to see this study because i am skeptical that it has the same degree of being reproducible as a physics experiment

for biology it's evolution
for psychology it's fight, flight, food and FUCK, that or Oedipus complex

>wild conjectures are not theories
Wild conjectures? Are you implying that environment or genetics can't influence a person? Or that there is not unconscious processing in the Human mind? Because other fields greatly depends on those ideals as well.

>I want to see this study because I'm skeptical that it has the same degree of reproducibility as a physics experiment

You comprehended that my entire point was that the study itself was flawed and used incorrect statistics correct? Regardless here

science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

Also, psycics is an entirely different field with a hell of a lot less complex outside factors to deal with. Why must it reproduce results at the same rate? Genetic studies sure as hell don't replicate that well yet no one questions it as a science. It seems like a hell of a double standard.

What to do you guys think of Ecological psychology? Is it a Science?

>Why must it reproduce results at the same rate?
because reproducibility is a key aspect of experiments in natural sciences.
>Genetic studies sure as hell don't replicate that well yet no one questions it as a science
they can probably predict the error between studies to a very high degree
>Also, physics is an entirely different field with a hell of a lot less complex outside factors to deal with.
see, you understand! this is precisely why social "sciences" are much weaker at making predictions and are thus not considered hard sciences.
>Why must it reproduce results at the same rate?
because you're trying to compare psychology to hard sciences, they need to have the same level of predictive power.

neuroscience and a better understanding of the brain are the only things that will elevate psychology to that level.

Of course it's a science, just not a very rigorous one overall. Different fields of research within psychology vary in how rigorous they are however, just like in every science.

Thing is, when people say "science", what they really mean is "serious science" which is often associated with the natural sciences in the minds of most people.

>Genetic studies sure as hell don't replicate that well
source?

If predictive power and reproducible results, rather than adherence to some kind of methodology, is what makes a field scientific, then would AI be considered a science?
Would computer scientists be accorded the same status as physicists then?

isn't CS just applied math? isn't AI just applied CS and engineering? seems more interdisciplinary to me

>they can probably predict the error between studies to a very high degree

Based on what? I've certainly never heard of such a thing in the field. You're avoiding the point they still do not meet your criteria that you're setting for psychology.

And you're still saying psychology is weaker on making predictions but based on what as well? The only large study as a just linked found the replication to be pretty much as high as you could ask for.

>source
Besides just dealing with genetic studies on a daily basis here
academic.oup.com/nar/article/45/1/e1/2871106
But to be fair I haven't looked at all the studies it lists and as it also lists the debunked psychology studies it could be flawed. But that's the best I can do with my limited free time atm.

Psychology has literally all of those things. What year do you live in?

You people don't get it. This discussion is so definitely predicated on your personal philosophical beliefs that are a priori to this discussion. I believe in free will. Thus there is subjectivity in human subjects. There is no subjectivity in an electron. That's the difference. If you think of everyone as a bunch of predetermined circuit boards then both psych and physics are sciences but who cares you're life is meaningless

Your life only has the meaning you give it, predetermined or not.

But now we're not discussing physics nor psychiatry, but philosophy.

Though I suppose there's some overlap with philosophy and psychiatry, when it comes to recovering from an existential crisis.