Everybody here knows that psychology and sociology are bunk sciences.

>>8845626
Literally look on pubmed, behavioral psychologists will often attach videos for their publications that have results nobody would believe without replicating them (and people will still replicate them before they believe it).

Of course, if you weren't too much of a brainlet to do a quick pubmed search or look up the journal of visualized experiments, you would know this.

You're not really going to find videos of human experiments for ethics reasons.

>>8846151
>Refuse to believe pseudoscience taught in college makes me a brainlet

How would I know what kind of dubious communication methods these pseudopsychologists use? I'll look at pubmed anyhow.

File: psychology_101.jpg (33KB, 664x537px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 664x537px

>>8845626
>Psychology
>THE AMOUNT OF DOGS YOU HAVE, PREDICTS IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE A KILLER OR NOT
Q.E.D

>>8845626
>>8845653
>>8845690
>>8846284
>>8846244

You sound pretty insecure there buddy

>>8846244
Because you were too dumb to figure out the solution to your question without consulting /sci/.

>>8846391
But /sci/ is full of professionals, so why would I research it when I can just ask you pawns?

How can you reject a neuroagig study if its replicated? Psychology totally does have a real scientific aspect to it. The places where it starts becoming meaningless are in developmental psych, for example, where you basically learn a bunch of competing theories that more or less state the same thing but predict either nothing, or vague trends that arent replicable between different people. Neuroimaging stuff, sensory stuff, fMRI, thats all science though.

>>8847516
I 100% believe neuroscience but this thread is about psychology.

psychology is fucked beyond repair, too many people injecting their morals and confirming their bias instead of actually observing results