Why do normies not consider psychology a valid science? You'd think, with the application of the scientific method, empirical methodology, and the advent of neuroscience, that people would be more accepting of this field.
Is it because they don't understand science? Or do they have a moral/ethical problem with science actively dissecting our mind and "soul"? What is society's problem with this field of knowledge?
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
twitter.com
you do realize that a psychologist does a lot of statistical research, right? i mean, i guess you are too stupid to know that, otherwise you wouldn't have made this retarded thread
marketing, consumer behavior, schedules of reinforcement to make people spend more money, psychologists are behind all that, and their research is as valid as a physicist's
this is Veeky Forums so maybe i should give you a gamin example, i guess most of you are gaymers after all. who do you think came up with the idea of microtransactions to make players spend way more money that they would have otherwise spent on the games? psychologists did, based on consumer behavior research, and it worked better than any of them could have expected
same for so many things
...
Are you illiterate? I specifically said normies didn't consider psychology a valid science, indicating that I actually do. I've taken an MA in psychology, lol.
I'm asking why mainstream media and laypeople don't.
>Why do normies not consider psychology a valid science?
Because psychologists don't use the scientific method
>who do you think came up with the idea of microtransactions to make players spend way more money that they would have otherwise spent on the games? psychologists did
[citation needed]
Explain.
The number cited is 39%, and the conclusions of that paper has been debunked time and time again. There is a problem with reproducibility in psychology, but it is no bigger than in other fields of research (with the exception of physics). Cancer studies in medical science have been found to have as little as 11% reproducibility. Saying "half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test" is an utter overstatement.
>Explain.
What part do you not understand? Psychologists don't use the scientific method, just like how sociologists and theologists and economists don't either.
People are hate psychology because it gives them the feeling that they are predictable robots, its scary and depressing.
I think humans are actually very predictable if you study them enough. Most don't like that idea. most never will like it.
What does Veeky Forums think of James Gibson?
>psychology
not science or math
>Make hypothesis
>Test hypothesis with a strictly empirical research project
>Test research project with robust statistical models, many of which psychologists helped create
>Accept findings as supporting the hypothesis if positive, throw away the whole thing if not
>"Not schientific method"
>???
And even in the studies that aren't empirical or in a lab setting (like the examples you mentioned), it is still a science. Do you not consider history or archeology sciences? They may not be EMPIRICAL sciences, but they are definitely science.
>Do you not consider history or archeology sciences?
I'm not aware of historians or architects who use the scientific method but they may exist.
It's more psychiatry that gets the negative attention, and not because of this:
>do they have a moral/ethical problem with science actively dissecting our mind and "soul"?
So much as because of how powerful brain altering drugs are doled out in massive quantities entirely on the basis of psychiatrists filling out questionnaire checklists.
Take the rebranding of antipsychotics for less severe mental illnesses for example.
Fucking abilify was the best seller OF ALL PHARMACEUTICALS in the US a few years back. Not the best selling psych drug, the best selling drug of any sort. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that was an appropriate use of the drug to have it prescribed that much for random shit like mild depression or anxiety.
And if you were to clearly define mental illness in terms of actual brain problems they wouldn't even be psychiatric conditions anymore, they'd become neurological conditions. Part of the psychiatric diagnosis process involves *ruling out* biological causes.
But do you question their status as sciences or their findings, because of that?
>But do you question their status as sciences or their findings, because of that?
As sciences.
Then how do you differentiate their standing from the likes of nonsense like astrology or shaman magic? Will you at least concede that history, economics, archeology, and yes, psychology, are *more* scientific than the other bullshit disciplines? If so, why not just call them sciences?
Basically, there's a giant strawman that claims psychology does not practice empiricism, or (I'd guess) empiricism is only NOT okay when psychology uses it. I don't know, very odd behavior usually spouted by people with little-to-no knowledge of academia.
Did you just get mad at someone for agreeing with you?
>There is a problem with reproducibility in psychology
Also it seems to largely be contained to social psychology which seems far more bias prone.
>historians or architects
I assume you mean archeologists but yeah there definitely are subdisciplines in these that are sciences. Psychology is the same it is retarded to say neuropsychology isn't science but completely fair to say something like psychology of art isn't. Also a lot of social science research is just piss poor and really doesn't help those in these fields trying to give them credibility. This is coming from a biological and cognitive psych guy.
>sociologists
There are plenty of empirical subdisciplines within sociology and behavioural economics is pretty scientific (as scientific as any behavioural studies can be).
He got it off a Vox video that everyone and their aunt saw but now he thinks he's an internet genius and gets to be derogatory toward anyone asking a question on a Laotian purse crafting board. These are the same egotistical assholes who then go on to make 17 threads about their IQ and take all the internet quizzes just to be sure they're as smart as they think they are.
>He
I'm not a "he".
Because some of its results (like niggers having a lower IQ than whites) conflicts with the current egalitarian dogma, and since the dogma can't be false in their minds, they conclude that it must mean that psychology is a pseudoscience.
