Is psychology a real science? Are those so-called "kinds of intelligence" and "everyone smart in someway" real or just propaganda made by psychologist to appeal and get money from people?
Interpret this any way you like.
> Are those so-called "kinds of intelligence" and "everyone smart in someway" real or just propaganda made by psychologist to appeal and get money from people?
I don't think you know what psychologists actually research and do. I'm not a psychology major myself, but some of my friends are. The research they are doing alongside their peers and advisors is actually quite interesting and diverse. It varies from the "soft" spheres like interpersonal relationships, self-esteem, and social-science stuff; to more cognitive and behavioral focused areas like addiction, learning, and memory formation; the clinical areas of neuroscience, brain development, psychopathlogy; to math-heavy areas like computational modeling, statistics, and organizational theories.
The students going into cognitive programs and behavioral programs seem the most /sci/ to me. Clinical programs are /sci/, but the students going into them are just going into it because they think it will land them a decent job (not realizing the market is over-saturated). Social psychology and pedagogical psychology is a joke.
Most of the impetus in psychology research seems to come from three things: autism, substance abuse, and the military. You're guaranteed to find at least one person doing something with autism in every psych department, along with another guy hooking wires up the the craniums of depressed drunks and seeing what happens. The military seems to put money into psych research all the time -- a couple people I know are actually going to an airforce base over the summer to do research on learning.
To the OP's question: given how seriously psychology researchers and publications take research methods and quantitative data, I would consider psychology to be a real science. These qualities clearly distinguish it from the social sciences.
Side note: those cognitive and behavioral guys I mentioned earlier prefer to be called "cognitive scientists" and "behavioral scientists."
This post pretty much sums it up. Depends on the area of psychology being studied. I'm finishing up my bs and looking into doctorate programs in behavioral neuroscience. Conditioning, cognition, behavior, neuropsychology are backed by reliable and valid data. Abnormal psychology is murky, there are real disorders but the classifications can be difficult to be agreed upon and influenced by special interests. Lifespan development and social psychology is just too vague to me, although Piaget did some interesting work
This is a good post
To add, if you are interested in psycho stuff, get into the science of decision making and you will be employed forever as long as you are competent and creative. Military will want you. The startup CEO types want you as a consultant. You can write books. You can branch into shit like artificial intelligence. The applications are endless.
The picture you're featuring is phrenologists diagram. It was pseudo science at the time developed by a german scientist Franz Gall. He brought up the idea out that each part of the brain was responsible for different character traits.He did so in a mildly sleazy way. He became wealthy off of giving people "readings" by tapping out the contours of their skulls and mapping to some soft of personality traits (like in django unchained skull and hammer scene). It was all bullshit, but the scientific community believed it. While this is an improvement from a purely decentralized view of the brain or even Aristotle believing that thinking happened in the heart, it was utter bullshit and Gall knew it.
It went as far as Napoleon ordering a personal head reading. Fun fact. Napoleon didn't agree with his reading and set into motion research that would discredit Gall and show advancements to psychology/neuroscience to show that thought isn't necessarily localized.
Then later more researchers showed that its both localized and delocalized.
Then people mapped these regions in greater detail(rather than Gall just guessing)
Neurons discovered in the early 1900s.
Hebbian webs, Etc Etc
What I'm getting at is that the science isn't too advanced. It is in its infancy. It is not mature, but I'd rather have people working on making a name by discrediting or criticizing the research of others than subscribing to something like phrenology.
Human brains follow a pattern and obey certain rules.
Psychology is the study and application of that.
That is real.
And as with any field of study, there will always be that guy spewing stupid shit that vaguely relates to what are legitimate studies of the mind.
I don't want to fuck my mother, and by saying that, someone will say that I do, because I said I don't want to.
Using that as an example, studying the truth to the statement is valid; However, trying to put a concrete rule where "OH YOU SAID IT, YOU 100% WANNA FUCK YOUR MOM NOW" is fucking stupid.
This is the only real science involving the human brain.
Is just a politcal tool.
Beware of informing the system of any 'problems you may have'. We are considered a massive threat to this insane system, even for questioning their authority/legality. Yes, this system actually believes that it is GOD, and will fucking assassinate your character/social profile if they can break you physically/mentally. This is Freud's golden dream coming into fruition, a system in which Zionism controls everything we are capable of doing, that spreads it's framework deep into human life & experience.
Here is the doctor's Grimoire of modern psychology, his/her spellbook of power against mankind, a machination of the zionist American Psychological Association (APA) - http://dhss.delaware.gov/dsamh/files/si2013_dsm5foraddictionsmhandcriminaljustice.pdf
The History and Tyranny of the DSM - http://psychologytomorrowmagazine.com/history-tyranny-dsm/
Upset and exhibiting dissent towards the system/any 'authority'?
Finding it hard to play your role, goy?
This is a consensus-based golem force that nobody can challenge inside the means of the system, which is slowly but surely overthrowing our reality.
THE MEDICAL MAFIA - http://www.whale.to/a/medical_mafia.html
What Zionist And Anti-Zionist Jews Have Said About: Medical Practices - http://theevilofzionismexposedbyjews.weebly.com/13-what-zionist-and-anti-zionist-jews-have-said-about-medical-practices.html
The Hidden Tyranny: The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview-1976 - http://www.whale.to/b/hidden_tyranny.html
Family-betraying/murdering Bernard Sherman (Zionist Jew) biggest drug dealer in the world via APOTEX - http://www.pharmaholocaust.com/Dr--Bernard-Sherman-tortures-me.html … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Sherman
(In case you weren't aware) The Hidden Tyranny: The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview-1976 - http://www.whale.to/b/hidden_tyranny.html
social intelligence, physical intelligence, musical intelligence, etc. are real
However, I think not everybody is equally intelligent, just in different ways. It's like how people who go to the gym are strong, and their are fatasses. No body builder or genius can really just be born that way.
Being smart has absolutely N O T H I N G to do with autistic IQ tests, ACTs and SATs. You can be a genius without being good at math, but not while not being good at anything.
Yeah, because Neuroscience it's not about the scientific method and study of the nervous system.
Anyway, when you have a fucking stroke please make sure you don't go to a fucking hospital to be saved by a fucking neurologist because, you know, their methods are based on neuroscientists researches.
You better hurry to a psychologist, he will surely know what to do.
Psychology hasn't done well in the past, because it is based on indirect observations. Think about how fucked physics would be if you could only observe an object at rest and then a week later it is at rest in a completely different location. It is easy to figure out how far the object moved but how it got to its current location you can never be sure. We are starting to get the technology to observe the brain, but matching up brain activity to action is difficult, and its hard to control for the mind getting distracted.
>Is psychology a real science?
It follows the general procedures any other scientific discipline uses to conduct research, so yes.
>Are those so-called "kinds of intelligence" and "everyone smart in someway" real or just propaganda made by psychologist to appeal and get money from people?
First, you're paraphrasing this crudely... psychologists don't claim 'everyone is smart' they speak in terms of intellect, which is capacity for knowledge and abstraction in one or more areas. Psychs will admit that everyone's intellectual abilities are different and varied, which is why there are gifted people, and those that are intellectually disabled. Secondly, the area or areas of intellectual capacity vary depending on the person. Someone will a high capacity for theoretical abstraction might have trouble with practicalities, or vice versa. That's just one example. No, psychs don't do this to make money. Those researching psychology actively are the ones producing knowledge, and the service-oriented psychologists distribute that knowledge. However, a lot will get things incorrect, but that's not the fault of the current theories being discussed in the field. It's just that it's too fucking easy to get a psych degree these days, honestly. Psychology is meant to be a holistic practice and too many people have a narrow, rigid outlook on things.
>conflating neurologists with neuroscientists
>their methods are based on neuroscientists researches
..and neurologists... and a thousand other professions and subdisciplines
face it, neuroscience is an intersection between psychology/neurology/psychiatry. As someone actually in the field I can tell you you are retarded and stupid. Your field doesn't really matter that much, only your professional focus. You can choose to call yourself whatever you like, being a "neuroscientist" doesnt qualify you for any sort of special "neuroscience" position, as those dont exist in the first place. Its just a title relating to your (academic) focus. Thats all. Stop pretending it makes you a special snowflake
Technically neuroscientists use imaging of some kind to look at neuronal behavior ranging from single cell recordings to BOLD response of networks. But there is a ton of overlap, and any neuroscientist who wants to do good research needs a firm grounding in psychological methods and analysis.
>I don't think you know what ________ actually research and do.
This is the root of most discussions these days. A person without a sufficient scientific background, be it in neuroscience or economics, cannot interpret empirical data nor spot logical inconsistencies within those fields of study. These are skills have to be trained like a muscle.
Pop scientists overestimate their level of insight when they offer nothing but vague click bait articles and conspiracies.
>you can bet neuroscientists do not want to be associated with psychology
Where do these delusional people pop out from? I work with "neuroscientists" in neuroscience work and my background is psychology. We never even discussed their background or mine until like 2 months later after I started
You see distinctions and draw lines where none exist, as an outsider nonetheless. I recommend you to end your life as soon as possible
Psychology is a science end of. We are humans yes we all have brains however psychology is studying how all of us with such similar brains can be so different! That has to do with nature and nurture as well as the use of our brains in different ways through different stages of our development! Also psychology doesnt show that men and women are equal or the same in fact they highlight key differences e.g men have better visio-spacial awareness skills than women, but women have better murturing tendancies towards infant than men since men tend to be more animalistic in terms of passing on their genes!
>But women do tend to be more empathetic
ie, delusional. There is no such thing as feeling what another person feels, nor sharing a feeling with them. You're aligning yourself with your own perception, and it's probably not even accurate.
Also, just as in men, women don't give half a fuck about their capacity for "empathy", and simply develop skills allowing them to use it at will for some sense of utility. Women are physically weak, and therefore, conniving.
>But women do tend to be more empathetic on average than men, anon.
This statement is too vague. When empathy is broken down into its components, men are found to prevail at cognitive empathy. Their response to distress is to alleviate it rather than panic and cry to others for help. You also did not mention that the bell curves for men in women, for general empathy, overlap.
Google the CNS and its effects on athletes, that is an example something that you "train" however the height of an athlete is something determined genetically.
Math is the same, as you study math your brain adjusts to the abstract methods of thought, this is learned, however IQ is still going to create certain boundaries on how quickly this happens and how quickly you grasp new concepts.
You need to learn to seperate what you want to be true from what you see to be true.
This gynocentric claim flies in the face of common knowledge. You'd have to be downright naive to believe it. A critical person would say to him self, "hmmmmm these psychology articles are also written by Jewish activists with trendy social justice agendas", and think something is fishy. It's as if psychologists are contributing to the mass media marketing campaign to portray ass kicking heroes that are superior to men in every way.
Wait a minute... what this?
>The work is part of the Reproducibility Project, launched in 2011 amid high-profile reports of fraud and faulty statistical analysis that led to an identity crisis in psychology.
Ahh that explains so much.
> social intelligence, physical intelligence, musical intelligence, etc. are real
First you dilute IQ's connection with what we call 'intelligence', or general baseline potential toward completion of cognitive tasks, by adding in other criteria which do not have the same correlation with completion of cognitive tasks.
I am not saying that social, emotional, musical or whatnot aptitude is not important in a holistic psychological understanding, but they relate to different things than the thing in question we are trying to measure.
>Being smart has absolutely N O T H I N G to do with autistic IQ tests, AC
next you divorce IQ from 'smart'. While 'smart' doesn't really have any scientific significance, to the best of out ability we have tried to segment and quantify what makes one best at certain tasks, and IQ seems to do a pretty good job.
Tests like the ACT, SAT etc have some overlap in the tasks they want test-takers to do, and thus some correlation with IQ.
This is further corroborated with the actual positive correlation IQ has with SAT and ACT scores.
You know something interesting that I learned during my undergrad?
>Men fall in love faster than women
>Men fall out of love slower than women
My female professor has said that when she normally mentions that during a lecture, her female students look at her like she's out of her mind.
Because IQ is innate ability. A highly intelligent student could have skipped school all of the time because he hated the way the education system worked. Thus he would have failed the SAT because most of it is about how much you've learned what was being put in front of you. Most of that involves only effort.
>Hence, “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” in today’s Science. The four-year study involving 270 co-authors replicated 100 social and cognitive studies published in three top psychology journals in 2008. Nosek said he was expecting about a 50 percent reproducibility rate, but the actual results were much lower: while 97 percent of the original studies produced significant results (a p-value of 0.05 or less) for whatever theory was being tested, just 36 percent of replications did. The effect sizes or magnitudes of the original studies were about half in Nosek’s project, too.
psychology is dependant upon beliefs overt and implied within the individual, measured against a population.
Its no suprise that thess tests aren't reproducible. Becuase historically people in the past were really bad at "self reflection" and still are. And these beliefs and behaviors that we have are a result of psychology and its finidings. Behaviors that are ultimatly defined by the majority of the populace in a specific location, at a specific time in history.
Psychology is more recrusive than any other field of science.
Im not going to doubt the legitmacy of psychology, or most schools of thought in psychotherapy fail to be popperian definition of what science is. But conversly I also cannot doubt the utililty of the findings psychology has made.
in truth some people believe Psychology has roots in science, when in reality it began as a more spiritual practice of exorcising demons and such. I think thats also why it has a hard time becoming a science.
You know that the human brain is complex right? We don't know all the variables that impact our social behavior. Many of the experiments trying to be replicated recently are embodied and social psychology experiments. Do you think phenomena that require explanation should not be investigated because you can't control all variables? Or because fuck people?
>people still referring to Freuds perverted theory like it's still relevant to the study
Lol its like saying Astronomy is bullshit because one time we used to believe the Sun orbited the Earth.
I really wish they did.
You at least baited someone to type out 2 paragraphs for you, solid troll my friend.
That's not the reason many are not reproductive. It's because many psychologists work sloppy by creating stupid non real life simulations.
Just like the study they did with rats and heroin.
>muh rat likes heroin more than water -> this is addiction!!!!! XD
After a long time psychologists understood that the rat was just lonely and bored, of course it would consume H.
Another study was done which was more like a "real life simulation", that means with other rats, sex, food etc. The rat did not consume H., Just occasionly
This is a problem INSIDE psychology, that too many dumb people get a degree without knowing what precision means in scientific work. Not going to say this does not happen in other fields but not that frequently.
Another BIG problem is OUTSIDE psychology where people pay for shitty studies to sell their political agenda. This shit is fucked man
It is a science in the Popper sense (falsifiable hypotheses).
And if yoj are talking about theory of multiple intelligences, that has been pretty much debunked. The fella at Harvard who came up with it has admitted it is bunk.
I never said it wasn't used, but it's way more used in sociology cause psychology focuses much more on causality than on representative stuff.
You'll surely find some quantitative studys in psychology, but a much much bigger part of publications is based on experiments, whereas almost every publication in sociology is based on quantitative data.
>psychology focuses much more on causality than on representative stuff.
>a much much bigger part of publications is based on experiments
Yes, you need experimental data unless you're writing a theoretical or review paper. The data is quantitative.
First, what the hell do you even mean, second I challenge you to find me a purely qualitative psych study from the last 20 years.