Is psychology a real science?

>>7957443
Predictive power, reproducibility, ability to distinguish signal from interest variable from confounding variable noise

Psychology comes up shorter on all of these than hard sciences do

>>7957458
I'd say it has quite the predictive power and reproducibility. It's just "unethical" to conduct these experiments.

That last one is a difficulty most sciences had or continue to have but is made easier with the advancing of research environment


Let me ask you one thing, though. Are the findings of psychological research false? Do they not have practical uses in the world?

>>7957498
>I'd say it has quite the predictive power and reproducibility.
You would be wrong.

>>7957443
I'd say it's more a pseudoscience for the most part. Basically you have a hard time generalising to the human brain since unlike the subject matter of all the other sciences, the brain learns about your results and adapts.

Geology would be a lot harder if rocks knew what you learned about them and then decided to change to take your knowledge into account.

>>7957513
I am not a major in it, I'm considering majoring in it. But some things sound very reproducable. Like, every child without a father will end up picking a father figure. Isn't that a reproducable result of the experiment of leaving a child without a father?

Anything you tell a child is morally wrong from an early age and keep having him reminded of it, always speaking ill of people who do it and maybe tell him there will be scare him of its consequences and he'll end up finding it a matter of taboo. He'll always have a hard time doing it. You will be able to observe his heartrate increase when he commits it every time.
Every time this doesn't happen you'll find a precise reason for why not.

>>7957519
That's a classic stem simplification of it
What you're describing is the goal of psychology and a strong point of why it's a real science. Freud observed that the more the patients realize their illness the less the symptoms occur.
Reproducability and predictability right there.

>>7957520
>I'm considering majoring in it.
Don't.

>>7957524
All I'll say is that psychology is the only 'science' class I've ever taken where they had to justify their status as a science to the students. And it was actually stressed. We had to look [other] pseudo-sciences and point out how psychology 'differed'.

>>7957520
>Anything you tell a child is morally wrong from an early age and keep having him reminded of it, always speaking ill of people who do it and maybe tell him there will be scare him of its consequences and he'll end up finding it a matter of taboo. He'll always have a hard time doing it. You will be able to observe his heartrate increase when he commits it every time.
Every time this doesn't happen you'll find a precise reason for why not.
100% false. Source: every time I smoke weed ever, replicate measurements: most everyone

>>7957536
I don't really care about inferiority complexes. I'm not interested by any stem fields and can't become a psychiatrist.
>>7957540
There is such a process where you stop believing in all taboos all together. But the first time you decide to do something immoral your heart will race.

>>7957561
>There is such a process where you stop believing in all taboos all together. But the first time you decide to do something immoral your heart will race.
Nope.

>>7957565
Wow anon you're just born a badass O:

>>7957536
That's because it's constantly called non-scientific. If physics wasn't considered science by many people, then they'd justify their status also.

Why do we need this thread every single day?

>>7957611
Yeah, because it is actually not scientific. If physics produced the results psychology did we would also call it not scientific.

>>7957536
>All I'll say is that psychology is the only 'science' class I've ever taken where they had to justify their status as a science to the students

I see you've never taken an economics class

>>7957627
Kek. You would be correct; economics does seem to have a pseudoscience vibe going too.

>>7957519
>the brain learns

What is the mereological fallacy, Alex.

>I'd say it's more a pseudoscience for the most part.

You'd be wrong for the most part.
But keep trying, there's hope for you yet.

>>7957625
>Yeah, because it is actually not scientific. If physics produced the results psychology did we would also call it not scientific.

Right, so all the animal studies with precise data collection, high replicability, and high predictability are to be ignored?

Of course, someone with your profound acumen would also consider quantum physics to be "actually not scientific." So there's that.

>>7957627
>>7957631
Funny enough economists decide how much you should make

>>7957652
I like you
Please validate my life choice of studying psychology

>>7957696
>economists decide
What are you talking about? Economics is about modeling natural production and consumption behavior, they don't "decide" anything

>>7957697
Your first error was in asking for validation ;)

If you chose to study it, then obviously there is something meaningful about it to you. Don't lose sight of that.

Also, don't treat it as something purely academic. Use it to improve your own life. Especially if you have to read outside of your focus. Being exposed to a variety of topics and paradigms is very helpful.

My parents wanted me to be in computer science. I was good at it too.

I switched to psychology and loved it. Studied and read enough to get a free ride for graduate school.

After that I taught and consulted and am working on a new theory and package for clients. I was lucky to have great mentors and a rigorous scientifically-based training. It's allowed me to dabble in multiple areas from animal research to health behaviors to organizations.

You've made a good choice. You can make it a great one with focus and dedication.

>>7957699
>policy makes don't depend on economic research for decision making
Next time your benefits are cut, remember an economist by the name of Morton Friedman
But if they increase, remember Kenze or Marx, depending on who pushed for the increase

>>7957458
the traditional methods of psychology perform poorly compared to the hard sciences because there was no better option at the time psychology began. Psychology was pretty much the first scientific or semi-scientific attempt at understanding the mind ever since philosophy of mind. Its methods are those of introspection, indirect observation and very superficial experiments on behavior. You can't blame a 19th century discipline for not knowing better.

Neuroscience and cognitive science are our most recent attempts

>>7957708
I wouldn't be looking for validation if I had already signed up. But I'm still not sure.
I've already wasted a year in Engineering and am not going anywhere with it. It's not hard at all. I'm passing with absolutely zero effort, but only passing. I don't like the time I spend studying it nor the job I'm heading towards.
Right now my second choice is English, which is an easy ride for me that will fill my pockets with money (I'm from a country with a high demand for translators and educators for English), but I just know I won't like it.

>Is psychology a real science?

nope
100% pseudo science

>>7957718
Watch TED talks and lectures by engineers, ESL teachers, and psychologists. That should give you an idea of where each path will take you.

Good luck, anon.

>>7957748
Thanks, anon.

>>7957708
>Studied and read enough to get a free ride for graduate school

You say this like it's something out of the ordinary. Unless you're doing some counseling or social work Master's program, this is a given for anybody accepted to grad school. Any /grad/fag on here knows that.

Otherwise, you seem pretty chill, anon. Generally good advice. Had I been around more people like you, I probably wouldn't have bailed for a neurobiology PhD.

OP, note what he says about focus and dedication, though. Psych has vastly more variation in the quality of it's students than other empirical disciplines. Regardless of them, do the quality of work you would demand of yourself were they all the most studious, engaged, intelligent people ever. Don't let the mediocre shits who end up in psych drag you down with them.

This is a tricky one. Psych is certainly not a hard science. When it comes to quantifying brain activity in order to observe something, say a mental illness, neuroscience is the better bet.

However, i think psychology still has a place in the world. Even if you could simultaneously keep track of every single neuron in the brain, the resulting behavior is more tricky to quantify. Even if it is a soft science, psychology can make broader predictions about behavior.

Perhaps psych is the middleman between hard neuroscience and public policy

>>7958011
Psych is the middleman between psychiatry (another pseudoscience) and religion.

>>7957652
>Right, so all the animal studies with precise data collection, high replicability, and high predictability are to be ignored?
You can't ignore what doesn't exist

>>7957716
>You can't blame a 19th century discipline for not knowing better
That doesn't mean I have to call it science

We don't call alchemy a science

>>7957443
A real question: "Is philosophy a science?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k2SRoAXC9c

>>7957716

Neuroscience is not really the same as psychology. Psychologists have accepted Neurscience's models, but Neuroscience as a discipline emerged as a distinct entity, it didn't originate as a branch of academic psychology.

>>7958448
no, science is a philosophical tool

>>7958468
Yeah, unlike psychology, neuroscience is actually legitimate

>>7958448
>cuck trying to justify his Philosophy degree
lmaooo

I switched my major to psychology after getting an associates in accounting. I plan to do doctoral studies in neurobiology of addiction, lucky for me there are a few professors in my school who actually done behavioral neuroscience programs and the department actually offers some good behavioral neuroscience courses and we have a nice small lab to do research. What I noticed from the program is that while a lot of stuff is interesting, it is not challenging to me at all. If you have above average intelligence or just decent research skills you will get a 4.0 without studying, whats worse is the other students who struggle to grasp basic statistics and don't think it is necessary to understand the statistical concepts. In my opinion, the cognitive, learning, neuroscience,comparative animal behavior, and any course dealing with behavior is legit. Personality, emotion, lifespan development and courses are the like can be very interesting but the research behind it isn't the most reliable due in part to the constraints of testing human subjects. Abnormal psychology falls in a grey area, a lot of the stuff is sound, especially when backed with cognitive and neuro research, but its reliance on the DSM really hinders it as DSM is not too reliable and has many conflicts of interest.

>>7957443
I put psychology above the other social sciences and just below biology.

>>7958468
This is incorrect and ignorant
All you have to do is look up any psychology or psychiatry journal and see articles

>>7957519
>geology
>rocks
>harder

Diamond tier joke

Medfag here. Just about to graduate medical school and start psychiatry residency.
Here are my two cents.
1. While psych does have a rough history, over the past couple decades it's made a lot of advances in our ability to science the hell out of the brain. It's a very exciting time the in the field.
2. Psychology is probably the softest science involved in how the brain works
3. People who shit on psych because it isn't a 'hard science' are intellectually lazy. The human mind is the greatest thing in the known universe, and it's our job to gain an understanding with the technology we have available.
4. Don't go into psychology. It's a goddamn money trap and the work is super shitty. If you really want to study how the brain works, go into neuroscience and go into academia

>>7959291
That's like saying shitting on astrology is for intellectually weak people because studying the galaxy great. People don't shit on what you're studying, but how rigorous lacking and full of shit your studies are.

>>7959330
Dude, I do research in fMRI in applications regarding drug addiction. In terms of scientific validation, it's just a legitimate as the rest of modern medicine.
You guys talk a lot of shit that you know nothing about. And as for rigorous, if you can find a better way to study how the complexities of the brain functions, you be sure to let us know.
Fucking autists.

>>7959347
>says the guy whose field routinely conducts studies with little better than 20% power

Imaging is, in theory, an amazing technique when coupled with the capabilities of modern data science. The problem is just the logistical and cost factors related to imaging that prohibit robust sample sizes allowing for studies with at least 80% power to detect a true effect.

That issue compounded with the a priori assumptions inherent in ROI based analyses has the potential to waste a lot of money and send people on a lot of wild goose chases.

Insofar as this is also a key complaint made against psychology, I don't see how imaging work along these lines is less deserving of scrutiny.

>>7959347
What kind of research, doctoral, post doc or just work for an organization?

>>7957443
Every goddamn day someone makes this thread again. Yes, psychology applies the scientific method. It is a science. However, statistical methods have lots of flaws, and since the psyche is being treated as a metaphysical entity, it's subject to a lot of undefined and interchangeable terminology and experimental parameters are hard to control. It's a new science. Give it time. Psychology, while being a science, is in it's beginning stages. Also, not all psychologists are scientists as they do not all do research or apply the scientific method. Some are therapists. Some are advisors. Some work in child services. Some are detectives. Soe serve sapoenas. (sp?)

Most people who have overwhelmingly negative opinions of psychology have only studied it at the intro level, which covered a lot of the history of psychology, which was chock full of aimless pontificators, professional bullshitters, and psychopaths projecting their own neuroses onto the world and their patients. However, it's been over a hundred years. Times have changed.

>>7958468
Neuroscience - any or all of the sciences, such as neurochemistry and experimental psychology, which deal with the structure or function of the nervous system and brain.

It is most definitely a branch of psychology. Anybody that says it isn't knows shit.

>>7957748
But those talks are all trash. The TED platform has been scam artists and nutcases almost since the beginning.

File: 1454038961611.jpg (331KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 517x768px

>>7959775
>It is most definitely a branch of psychology. Anybody that says it isn't knows shit.

Jokes on you. Neuroscience is a branch of biology. My entire undergraduate study consisted of only biology, chemistry, and pharmacology. I took one psychology course. Two different worlds.

>>7959801
Not every university is the same. My university has one graduate course on neurobiology, all the undergraduate neuro courses are offered by the psychology department

What is with some of you people judging modern psychology based on some 19th and 20th century memers doing arbitrary meme research when the entire field has been shitting itself over conducting research in the most scientific way possible for the last 20+ years?

If you want to have a go at something related to psychological research, start picking apart the shortfalls of modern statistics and the probability levels traditionally considered significant

>>7961133
Psychopathy is real, glad science of psychology could explain it to some extent, when you have a relationship with one, it's fucking confusing.

>>7957513
>If I say you're wrong on the internet you're wrong

>>7957458
check this out before you talk shit about psychology. Vigo, R. (2013). The GIST (Generalized Invariance Structure Theory) of Concepts, Cognition, 129(1), 138-162.

>>7957458
>>7957498
Neuroscience has all those things. Neuroscience is a real science.

Psychology in general though does not, but it has its foundation in neuroscience.

Is cognitive science(s) real science(s)?

>>7957624
Because people on /sci/ are autistic with low self-esteem, so they come on 4chan to show everyone how logical they are by denouncing something requiring some humanistic interpretation as FAKE SCIENCE 4 FAKERS!!

>>7959719
/end of psychologyaintreel threads/replies

>>7957443
There isn't any real empirical physical measurement, so it can't be a science because that is a major component of the scientific method that most pseudosciences tend to ignore.

Instead of measuring they have experts who choose semi-arbitrary numerical values, so they can hand wave through algorithms or they use formulas to allow individuals to self report values on an arbitrary scale or qualitatively pick their favorite choices in a series of false dilemmas.

>>7957443
yes psychology is a real science because it applies the scientific method

>>7962543

the numerical scales aren't arbitrary if you apply them to enough people to get a population to compare with and if people grade their shit the same way in general

>>7957997
>Studied and read enough to get a free ride for graduate school

>You say this like it's something out of the ordinary.

You're right. It's not out of the ordinary. Getting funded depends on the uni and the program, though.

>>7962543
This is true for human research. However, there are no self-report measures in animal studies.

People leap to human psychology without paying attention to animal psych which was the foundation for proper scientific psychology. That's why those who tried to start off with humans, such as Freud, are historical footnotes today.

>>7963012
Yes, they are arbitrary, it would be the same as asking a whole lot of people to rank the brightness of the sun on a scale from 1 to 10 because you have no way to compare their internal scales because no actual measurement was made and they were just making a subjective guess, so you are just taking a pointless numerical average of a bunch of arbitrary incoherent scales of guesswork.

>>7963458
>no self-report measures in animal studies
Yes, you give the animal two free choices and extrapolate the data of based on the weight you put on choosing one item or task over the other.