Psychology is a fucking joke

>MSU

>>8653587
Laugh all you want but this kind of research plays a huge role in trying to manipulate the public. Better to be aware than to unknowingly be strung along by some puppet master.

>>8653587
I'm sorry what's your problem with this simple study?

It's preschool level, but it's not wrong.

>>8653604
It wasn't done by preschoolers.

File: albert-bandura-quote-learning-would-be-exceedingly-laborious-not-to.jpg (93KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x1000px

>>8653608
Ths it's obviously based on the work of Albert Bandura that was based on the works of Lev Vigotsky.

The methodology behind it, I consider it valid.

File: I swear it wasnt me.jpg (74KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 720x540px

How is psychological research even done anyway? And if you go see a psychologist because, say, you are so mad at your workplace that you can't work anymore or you and your wife are having serious relationship issues, on what "theories" (I'm assuming here that there is one) will he or she use when deciding the best course of action?

Since reading shit like Piaget or Moreno (creator of psychodrama) I always felt like psychology was just pseudo-science to the likes of astrology or acupuncture, but not long ago I read a paper about the dunning-kruger effect and was sorta convinced that it made sense.

>>8653587
What if they're socio/psychopaths? They tend to be adaptable and all that

>>8653634

>posted the comment before reading

>>8653608
These people are actual researchers with phds, holy shit.

>>8653587
>headline
You can't judge scientific research from a pop-sci news headline. The people writing those articles are not qualified to comment on or even just to summarize the work they're writing about.

>>8653633
Pavlov it's psychology, Skinner it's psychology, Watson, etc...

It's not just Psychonanalists and personality analysts.

There's always a range for critiscm in every study, enviromental, socio-cultural, or the main problem that it is the sample pool.

You are always limited to the amount and kind of people you can make the research on.

Cognitive psychology, it's the psychology of campus students in the 18 to 25 range, cause that's the experimental subjects they used every single time.

But now with the internet and more widespread studies, you can make better more relevant research, sadly they reduce themselves to this ridiculous studies that were done in the 1930's already.

>>8653659
Sad!

>>8653587
>>8653587

academia in general is totally cancerous

>>8653587
>implying that personality is entirely determined by genes
You are really biased by /pol/, geez

>>8653587
>When preschoolers spend time around one another, they tend to take on each others’ personalities, indicates a new study by Michigan State University researchers, which suggests personality is shaped by environment and not just genes.
Could also be that similar people find each other.

File: 8806864-Man-and-woman-parents-and-two-children-having-fun-driving-in-a-red-convertible-car-in-sunshine-Stock-Photo.jpg (212KB, 1300x866px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1300x866px

whats the best form of psychology to study at uni ?

>>8653602
This

It's all pathetic and funny until they start building models to manipulate us, and actually start applying them to the majority of idiots

Mandatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

File: YourReadingAbility.png (163KB, 474x252px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 474x252px

>>8654316

>>8657130
kys

>>8657230
niggas like you are so annoying

>>8653587
Haha amazing this is real

>>8653633
Psychology is usually baseless conjecture or just plain obvious. OP is right.

>>8657511
Math is obvious as well

>>8653587
>Holy shit how can they take themselves seriously? The entirety of their research can be summed up as 'people have an effect on each other'.
And here we can see a classic example of hindsight bias. Psychology is not a joke, after all.

>>8653587
PSYCHOLOGY ISNT A SCIENCE
END OF THE DISCUSSION

>>8657717
You might not consider it a science but advertisers will still use it to become wealthy

Whether it works or not isn't really up for debate any more

Cigarette?

Is underestimating psychology a sign of a brainlet?

>>8657740
its not my opinion, It lacks of certain things a true science must have

obviously (((they))) use It, (((they))) are too stupid for science

>>8657742
Yes.
The people in this thread couldn't even dream of passing a psychology class because they think it is all common sense or pseudoscience.
These people should go back to /pol/, /x/, and/or /b/.

>>8657717
>t. someone that has never studied psychology.

>>8657759
And what exactly must a "true science" have, Anon?

>>8657768

Not him but obviously the only true science are the meme hard sciences.

But honestly, while I personally consider psychology a science it still has issues with it. Particularly it's ability to replicate results which are lower than other science fields.

>>8653587
It is a joke in a lot of ways, but it doesn't have to be. It's just so flooded with bullshit theorizing and it's a good tool for propaganda.

>>8653633
There are different remedies for different people. This may seem at first that psych has no unifying theory (which it probably doesn't other than "different strokes for different folks"), but I think it's because it encompasses a wide range of elements that are involved in human adjustment and behavior. There is a neurological element to human functioning. There is a chemical element. There is an environmental element. There is a mental element. These all become lumped in under "Psychology" and can seem like a field that can't find its head. But people will seek treatment for a wide range of issues caused by a wide range of etiologies. I think it needs to stop trying to be like medicine and accept itself as something different entirely.

Actually there's ambiguity on some exact specifics of what's ingrained into the brain already and what is learned. Animals already 'know' things instinctively but how much? Is personality a part of that?

>>8657717
>>8657766
I think Psych can be treated AS a science and have the better truths weeded out from the lesser ones, but it will not reach the level of precision and empiricism that other sciences have. This is because you can't study consciousness on an atomic level, and that the reasons for a thought and behavior can range widely, and the interactions between forces make it even harder to pin down to one cause.

>>8653672
Junk scientists make junk science. It's really that simple. Stop sucking the scientist's dick just because they're scientists, but really, most of them are shit and produce equal shit throughout their careers.

>>8653587
>>8653708
Psychology is a field of questionnaires, surveys and checklists. It's a dubious field. The only reason it is given any credence is economists wrap math around it and create more bullshit; the pharma industry uses it as a fulcrum to peddle petroleum based drugs that 90% or more isn't absorbed, leaves through the urine, enters municipal water supplies and everyone gets the pleasure of drinking.

Psychology is the masquerade of science. Psychologists devised the lobotomy. Psychologists were behind the T4 Euthanasia Program. They routinely violate the Hippocratic Oath. The very existence of the field is harmful. It is the study of the mind without any sharp tools. It's like calling yourself a sculptor when all your doing is messing with playdoh.

So, please, fill out another fucking survey, questionnaire or checklist and tell me more about your empirical evidence. Then McDonalds can use it to target children into manipulating their parents into buying them a happy meal.

At best, psychology is scum collection for the advertising industry; a cornhole fuck puppet for pharmacology; a sperm rag for economists; a little bitch that doesn't deserve to be regarded as science.

>>8653587
Need I remind you that there are study's and observations in every science that set a base for further research. Also, I find it rather interesting because toddlers shouldn't have developed enough social normality to adopt other trait characteristics. Trait assimilation is actually quite complex and I wouldn't anticipate a child doing it for social gain. Thank you for the fun fact!

>>8653633
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky developed a handful of clever experiments to demonstrate various psychological phenomena, such as the cognitive biases and limits of rational thinking. Their experiments are well defined and have been reproduced, so it's not entirely pseudo.

>>8657891
Well said.

>>8655995
True in general sense but how much control do preschoolers have over who they hang around. Maybe the methodology of the study can allow the inferences OP suggests were made.

>>8657778
Medical research and biology has similar problems. And in fact, whole swathes of biology I.e. ethology, ecological and general macroscopic stuff don't really rely on experiments and have methodologies which are essentially just observation like in social psychology or sociology. Science has no defined boundaries. Maybe physics and chemical are the only proper sciences.

Biggest problem is that people split apart psychology and neuroscience when especially these days they cannot be separated and rely on each other. They are all working towards the same goal of understanding the mind, using different methods and at different scales. When people think of psychology they think too much of the very social or mental illness side but forget the side that deals with the very roots of cognition. Things like eye movement, theory of mind, body ownership. Cognitive neuroscience I think has pretty much almost reached a stage where it does have a unifying set of theories/frameworks, it just hasn't been fully validated yet as it's barely 10 years old. But in the future it will expand more. Part of it too is technology limitations though with the brain. But brain and cognition has to be hand in hand. The higher the scale though, where the line blurry into sociology is different though. Not bad but I think people might continue to think of that as trash.

>>8657932
Some of the theories mentioned in that thinking fast and slow book have been heavily scrutinies though. E.g. priming, cognitive effort

>>8657130
Economics

>>8657526
No.
Math is trivial.

>>8653587
Personality doesn't exist. So really get it off this board

>>8659723
Trivial things are obvious.

>>8657130
Neuroscience

>>8657891
What's wrong, petal? Did the nasty man say you were autistic again?

>>8653587
Have you never done any research at all? Studies like this are done in every field. Just to play the PhD game you need to be publishing many safe studies like this along with one or two more risky experiments.

Not to mention both possible results of the study would be considered common sense by people like you. If they found that environment did not shape people's behaviors in a significant way you would still be saying "hurrr no shit, everyone has their own personality. Psychology is stupid."

you can't completely understand something as complex as the human brain with only input/output. psychology is a dead end, we need to understand the brain physically.

>>8653587
>Psychology is a fucking joke

No shit. It is a form of religion actually.

>their revelation
>2017

They don't read through old papers it seems. I guess reading old shit doesn't really lend well to the grant chaser lifestyle.

frued's theory of personality was directly plagiarized from plato
its been a settled matter since the ancient world
jews like it because its subjective, so perfect for blue pilling

>>8653587
More like people have an affect on each other, amirite?

... guys?

>>8662395
hey

You need to test things you find obvious, because some times obvious is wrong.

>>8663471
This.

OP is an ego faggot that doesn't belong in science.

>>8653587
There's a reason it's called a soft science.