Is psychology a respectable field of study?

the reason that psychology has a bad reputation is because the people who study it are insufferable retards and the stigma due to freud and friends

it does use the scientific method, but most "research" in psychology is consistently shitty, and often makes use of confusing statistical bullshit to push a personal agenda, such as obscuring p-values, implicitly assuming large levels of significance, choosing weird sample size or not actually using random samples even though they claim to

this is in part due to how ridiculously complicated human psychology actually is, and how much it varies from person to person, but mostly because psychology is the first choice for people who want to be STEM but don't want to do any heavy lifting, so to speak

and on the other end of the spectrum, you've got the old psychology elitists who actually did do a lot of work in their field and like to shit on everyone

the real question is why a certain group of people seem to flock to psychology, if you know what i mean

The biggest problem with psychology is that it lacks a fundamental guiding theoretical framework to work in. There are so many theories floating around that most researchers are doing the science equivalent of shots in the dark.

...

I think by its nature psychology cannot have one because its so complicated. If it did, i think this framework would rely on things like theoretical neuroscience as naturally psychologicala cobstructs are dependent on this

>freud
>the hallmark of psychology
I found the brainlet everyone! Freud is known even in the field of psychology to have been very armchair, actual psychology uses math and statistics to analyze results. Freud was borderline philosophy.

>often makes use of confusing statistical bullshit to push a personal agenda

i don't disagree, but its not that hard to get gud at statistics to see through the bullshit

its a good starter major to blow through some money and time while you decide what you really want to do

Elaborate.

Thx for the advice

Neuroscience is basically the real science version of psychology

is there a lot of women in your uni?
then yes, meme degree
If not, kinda respectable.

It's better to do psy than nothing

Neuroscience has absolutely nothing to do with psychology. Neuroscience is a real science (biology, chemistry, genetics).

>the real question is why a certain group of people seem to flock to psychology, if you know what i mean

If by this you mean psychos then I totally agree. Never met a sane psych major yet

Most real mental disorders have an obervable effect in the brain using neuroscience.

And I literally just said it's a real science, why are you repeating me?

Neuroscience is not hard version or a serious version of psychology. There is absolutely nothing in common.

>Most real mental disorders have an obervable effect in the brain using neuroscience.
So youre denying this?

neurology and psychiatry

But neurology is just a branch of neuroscience?
differencebetween.com/difference-between-neuroscience-and-vs-neurology/

yes but psychology is not a branch of neuroscience.

But you dont have to be a direct branch to share some relation

Astrology shares some relation with astronomy too

Yes, astronomy is like the real science version of astrology.

lol

You tell me.

Im sorry if you think astrology is a real science.

imagine being so new you there has ever been a day in the history of Veeky Forums where psychology wasnt considered a meme

psychology is glorified philosophy

this article is actually real? what the fuck

cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html

...

If Veeky Forums was a single person you'd have a point.

psychology is just a new science, not a lot of work's been done on it yet compared to older sciences

>psychometrics
>trustworthy

Not an argument

fpbp

>I read a paper and tried to do it but I didn't get identical results therefore it cannot be reproduced
>I-ignore the decades of independent replications done since the initial publications, o-only my one failed published result is important...!

If anything, this is a failure of the original authors to specify the necessary details of their procedures. This reproducibility crisis in psychology is from lack of systematic lab reporting rather than charlatans and dumb luck.

The behavior analytic framework laid forth by Sechenov, Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, etc. provides such a theoretical foundation. It's all about direct demonstration of experimental relations. Funny how psychologists suppress the behavioral perspective while all other sciences are openly embracing it today.

www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/Motion/Slides/WitoldKosinski/london_p.pdf

Can you fuck off. Tired of dickheads like u

I can't wait for neuroscience to finally murder cuckology

>over a century of peer-reviewed experimental publications
>"dickheads like u"

ok

Until khabib fucks el cucuy

>mate only last 25 yrs is relevant. Fuck off.

Here are over 202,000 peer reviewed experiments from behavior analysis since 1993.

scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1,10&as_ylo=1993&as_vis=1&q=behavior analysis, skinner&btnG=

What do they say... and your search method. They aint all relevant or good.2

Summarise and state your point.

tl;dr - it's complicated but it works, who knew a conceptually systematic and biology-based approach to psychology produces reliable results?

Mainstream psych people will turn their noses up at single subject designs. "Small N!" "Lack of external validity!" This is because they are trained exclusively in fraudulent p-hacking and group designs. They have never heard of or conducted repeated measures analyses, nonparametric tests, or evaluated stability criteria. A study with one data point for 2,000 participants is meaningless when compared to a study with months of data for 5 participants. It's a very simple framework:

>Why do people do X?
>idk, arrange the most likely reinforcing consequences and see which one increases the rate of X

You can answer pretty much any question of psychology using this experimental framework. If the consequence doesn't affect the rate of the behavior, then the consequence is not the reason that behavior is occurring.

>but what about consequences you cannot manipulate?

Then you look towards descriptive analyses, informant assessments, or analog conditions. This is not a weakness of behavior analysis, it is a weakness of any situation in which the relevant dependent variables are not accessible.

Please (You) me with specific questions. I'd be happy to provide direct sources.