is evolutionary psychology a valid approch to human behaviour ?

>>8046947
Yes.

Anyone who disagrees is clearly retarded.

>>8046947
>psychology
>valid
choose one

>>8046950
You were just conditioned to think that way due to your environment, your opinion is too limited in scope and invalid.

if psychology is not a science why does /sci/ have daily threads about it?

In principle, maybe. In practice, no.

>>8046947
More valid than most other psych approaches.

>>8047014
It is a science - just not a "hard" science like physics or any other form of math. Principles in psychology are formed and tested via the scientific method, although solid conclusions are nearly impossible to come by due to the complexity of the human mind.

Until we have a complete map of all the neurons in the human brain and know exactly how they work and what they do, psychology will remain the best method for predicting, understanding, and modifying human behavior, despite it's shortcomings.

>>8047014
Ayy Lmao

>>8047029
bollocks, psychology is unfalsifiable, has an impossible amount of variables and has no core theories. just because it has superficial quasi-science practices incorporated into it doesnt mean it has any standing as a science and it will be completely eroded once neuroscience matures.

astrology isnt as valid as astronomy just because they both look at the stars, psychology isnt valid because it sometimes has statistical elements.

>>8047127
Kek, you scifags are pathetic

> it will be completely eroded once neuroscience matures.

I'll hold you to that - I'm sure we are well on our way to completely understanding every aspect of the human brain - along with the impossible amount of variables you just mentioned.

There are numerous evidence-based practices in psychology - yes, everything we understand about it is extremely fundamental, but to compare it to astrology or claim that it has no standing whatsoever as a science is beyond ridiculous.

>>8047141
>implying pSyChAoMlogy completely understands every aspect of "the mind".

>>8047158
Never said it did - at all. Did you read any of my posts or are you tolling? Allow me to copy and paste:

>
Until we have a complete map of all the neurons in the human brain and know exactly how they work and what they do, psychology will remain the best method for predicting, understanding, and modifying human behavior, despite it's shortcomings.

What I was IMPLYING is that there's no field that comes even close to understanding the mind. Neuroscience is making some breakthroughs here and there which will greatly improve psychology as time goes on - but we will NEVER understand all aspects of the human mind.

If you have a better method than psychology, by all means, write a book and change the world. Until then, shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down, nigger.

>>8047165
You can't have that many posts in this thread that I have read so far, but there are no IDs here.

Why does neurology need all the neurons exactly understood, but psychology gets a near total pass and can completely rewrite itself every decade to accommodate the current political climate?

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, pretty much all the major religions make claims about being the best at modifying and understanding human behavior.

The mind is just superstitious ghost in the machine machination invented by psychology, so you might as well say no science can ever come close to understanding the soul so the bible is right.

I wouldn't waste my time advocating bullshit, but nice try attempting to neg me into accepting your pathetic perspective.

>>8047181
>but psychology gets a near total pass and can completely rewrite itself every decade to accommodate the current political climate?

Oh give me a fucking break - is that your angle? The fact that they removed homosexuality from the DSM? I see what you're about now. Completely ignoring the fact that in order for something to be classified as a disorder, it must be inherently maladaptive.

Psychology changes as evidence is gathered to the contrary. Religion doesn't - that's the difference, you false-equivalency spewing faggot.

Still waiting on your better alternative...

>>8047141
the mind emerges from the brain, once we understand the brain psychology will be redundant.

it isnt a science, but im not saying it has no predictive power or isnt the best thing we have right now, its just not scientific.

>>8047184
Also the conversion of easily diagnosable behavior into spectrums of overlapping symptoms because labels are mean and its more convenient if you can just give them a bunch of drugs until they shut up.

>Religion doesn't
Your entire angle is that you don't know what dogma means?

Behavioral Neurology and cognitive studies are better than your mind over matter dopey dave mumbo jumbo.

>>8047187
Fair enough - I can actually concede that it's not a science in that regard. We apply scientific principles to it, and hard science benefits it greatly, but if you're going by pure semantics I'll drop the "it's a science" argument, even though that's debatable.

>>8047191
>give them a bunch of drugs until they shut up

That's psychiatry, moron. And that's basically what your argument leads to - what else besides drugs will be developed to treat the mechanistic workings of the mind?

What will be the result of behavioral neurology and cognitive studies in terms of treating people with mental disorders? Better drugs? If so, fantastic - I'm all for it. We're not even close to being there yet.

So I ask again, what do we do now about people suffering from mental disorders or behavioral aberrations? Drug them with the shitty drugs we have now - or use psychology? Those are your choices.

>>8047198
Alternatively, Better Diet and Conditioning.

Again, psyche advocates can't seem to understand this, but science is not about cleansing a soul and casting out demons, its about understanding conditions and adapting to the environment.

>>8047187

>the mind emerges from the brain, once we understand the brain psychology will be redundant.

lol, no

>>8047202
>its about understanding conditions and adapting to the environment.

Which is exactly what several therapeutic methods do. Psychologists also advocate proper nutrition and conditioning as well - however it's not a fucking cure all. In addition to that, many people seeking psychological help don't have the discipline or motivation to follow a diet or conditioning plan - this is where motivational interviewing (a psychological technique) has shown in studies to be effective.

Psychology has nothing to do with cleansing a soul or casting out demons. It has everything to do with teaching individuals methods to cope with their surroundings and adapt to their environment.

You know absolutely nothing about the discipline, as shown by your constant comparisons to religion. The only thing you no is "hurr durr it's not falsifiable therefore it has no merit and it's bullshit."

Quit attacking shit you have absolutely no understanding of, other than "it's not a science so it's bullshit." Psychological therapy has helped millions of people and will continue to do so until a better method is devised.

>>8046947
It is but human brains are a lot more complex than animal brains so it's hard

>>8048154
>>8048154
>it's not falsifiable
My reasoning for it being bullshit is more that it doesn't produce anything physically quantifiable or directly measurable, so mental illness is just as reliable a metric as sin.

>>8046947
>a valid approch
>to human behaviour
Qualify that. What are you trying to do with human behavior?

>>8048154
Religion has "helped" hundreds of billions of people.

>>8049014
Religion is nothing more than an overactive agent detection. It helps certain people because they cannot help but believe in such an all encompassing agent to relieve the stress associated with pattern recognition running haywire in a seemingly random universe.

Religions also doesn't help people because certain religions (desert death cults) hijack kin related responses to strangers.

>>8049059
Kind of like how you need to think you have some supernatural mind that encompasses the agency of your entire body while transcending the material flesh therein?

Then psychology doesn't help people either because some people using it need to be locked away and hidden from the public.

>>8049094
>Kind of like how you need to think you have some supernatural mind that encompasses the agency of your entire body while transcending the material flesh therein?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and no psychologist or therapist I've ever met believes anything like that.

>>8049111
Its built right into the definition of psyche.

>>8049130
>psyche

Your understanding of psychology clearly begins and ends with Freud. Maybe a little Jung peppered in there for more bullshit. You know absolutely nothing of the profession as it exists today. Literally go fuck yourself.

>>8049141
You clearly think its logical to call something that abandoned its namesake as being completely superstitious and has no physical quantifiable metrics required by the scientific method preferring a revolving door of unfalsifiable semantic fads a science, so I don't really value your opinions especially since you can't back up your claims with facts and only tell me how bad my understanding of the thing you are suppose to be advocating is.

>>8049014
>hundreds of billions
all-time total human population is about one hundred billion, fgt pls

>>8049148
I never once said there were physical quantifying metrics to psychology, you autistic fuck. I said it uses evidence based practice - which it does. There's tons of data supporting various therapeutic methods for various conditions - studies conducted using, yes, the scientific method. Your understanding is beyond terrible.

>>8049156
You aren't using the scientific method if you aren't objectively analyzing quantified physical metrics, that is the entire basis of empiricism that enables consistency through peer review.

>>8049161
There are several methods for quantifying otherwise subjective data found in psychological studies. Measures are carefully analyzed for reliability and accuracy. Psychological studies are subject to peer review, and studies not adhering to these standards are dismissed. Is it still subjective at it's core? Of course - compared to hard science studies that use physical metrics. That's the nature of studying thought and behavior. But it's still the scientific method, faggot ;)

>>8049180
No, its the pseudoscientific method because it attempts to replicate the scientific method, but skips important steps because it can never fulfill them with just the semantics and open interpretation of dynamic spectrums available within its toolset.

>>8049185
No, the process is the scientific method.

noun
1.
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

>>8049191
>empirically tested
good luck doing that consistently without measurable quantities

>>8046947
yes but more than often it's oversimplifying or starts from false premiss

>>8049161
It's called psychophysics you dumb fuck.

>psychology
>valid
Nah, tho.

>>8047187
We understand how DNA works completely, yet we don't understand everything, or even most things, about the human body. Just because you understand the pieces doesn't mean you understand the machine, especially if there are many many pieces arranged in a complex fashion.

>>8047029
>math
>science

opinion discarded

File: aldous_huxley.jpg (726KB, 1501x900px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 1501x900px

>>8046953

>>8049214
Quantities are made measurable in psychological studies - many well designed, heavily tested scales exist for that.

I know /sci/ autists like you have a hard-on for actual, physical measurements down to the nanometer or microgram - but obviously that can't exist in psychological studies. They still use quantifiable data, however. It is still the scientific method, whether that rustles your jimmies or not.

>>8049781
What is one reliably measurable physical metric that field has produced?

>>8049826
>We understand how DNA works completely, yet we don't understand everything, or even most things, about the human body.
that is so much bullshit

>>8050959
No, Qualities are assigned subjective values based on expert training of semantic scales in order for arbitrary formulas to hand wave through variables, they are not directly measured in any consistent way by reliable objective sensors unless you are try to watch neurons fire as per neurology or you are timing arbitrary events with a stopwatch as per physics.

>>8049826
>We understand how DNA works completely
tippity toppity hookity dookity kekkity rekkity dekkity

>>8047202
Oh, its you. From the other thread, who doesn't understand the accepted definition of psyche.

Fuck off

Not really...

When I was living in Australia, illuminatis & Mossad were on full spy-spree on me.

Starting from all RMIT university staff into all my General Practice doctors.

So I decided to hit a Psychologist called Dr.Marie Anderson.

I managed to fool her by telling her all made up stuff about my suffering -which is not close to the suffering being an Arab prince who does not wish to join illuminatis then he get assassinated over 200 times- turns out.

She managed to write full reports about me and send it to her illuminati masters "who in return made her go up in rank instead of an initiate who gets nice home, good life & sports car".

Therefore, nope... Art of War beats a person who studied Psychology and knows a bit of black magic like talking to Qareen.etc...

>>8049826
We understand "how DNA works completely"? What do you mean "how DNA works", do you have any idea of the complexity of the subject or how genetics/genomics are some of the fastest moving fields of science?