Talk:Psychology/Archive1
Topic[edit]
Anthropology and Sociology don't emphasize the scientific method? Anthropology (particulalry physical anthropology) is more science-based than psychology, and sociology is at least on a par with psychology. Behaviorism is the only branch of psychology that is rigorously science-based, but its usefulness in clinical practice is limited. PoorEd 09:05, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- Neuropsychology? Cognitive psychology? Comparative psychology? Evolutionary psychology? None of these approach the "rigorous" standards of behavioral psychology? EnVe 19:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- I suppose I should be more tolerant of the social sciences' claim to rigorous scientific method. And you are quite right. I wouldn't be able to make a case for the superiority of any of the branches of psychology when it comes to their relative scientific merit. But I'd be curious as to why you would consider any of them more scientific than anthropology. PoorEd 21:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- Depends on what sub-field of anthropology we are talking about. Until recently the dominance of cultural anthropology has been the major determent. But with the rise of human evolutionary anthropology, ecological anthropology I think things are improving. Sociology still seems to be mostly arm-chair theorizing but more and more are actually going to census records and other sources of data to try and ground their conclusions in something more...rigorous. I would still say psychology has inherited many less than scientific ideas and procedures but with increasing dominance of evolutionary ideas and neuroscience influence (particularly imaging methods!) this should fade to the fringe very soon. EnVe 22:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- You seem to diregard the dependance of both evolutionaly psychology and neuropsychology on subjective determinations about states of mind and emotion - otherwise it is physiology and not psychology. I'm not suggesting they are not sciences, at least of the 'soft' variety, and worthwhile endeavors. I didn't know that cultural anthropology, a grab bag of miscellaneous social sciences, was the dominant field in anthropolgy - in that I must have been mistaken. I guess I would like to suggest that the claim made in the article that psychology is more scientific than other social sciences is out of place and unnecessary. Instead of making a negative comparison to other social sciences which might be contested by scientists in those fields, I'd suggst you put more emphasis on establishing psychology's claim to scientific rigour. PoorEd 08:29, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- What is it you would call "hard science"? I fail to see how self-reports, behavioral observations, neuroimaging, drug manipulation, etc. produce observations that are empirically inferior to any other science. Certainly a lot more concrete than much of physics which has traditional been put forth as the ideal of "hard science." EnVe 11:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- You seem to diregard the dependance of both evolutionaly psychology and neuropsychology on subjective determinations about states of mind and emotion - otherwise it is physiology and not psychology. I'm not suggesting they are not sciences, at least of the 'soft' variety, and worthwhile endeavors. I didn't know that cultural anthropology, a grab bag of miscellaneous social sciences, was the dominant field in anthropolgy - in that I must have been mistaken. I guess I would like to suggest that the claim made in the article that psychology is more scientific than other social sciences is out of place and unnecessary. Instead of making a negative comparison to other social sciences which might be contested by scientists in those fields, I'd suggst you put more emphasis on establishing psychology's claim to scientific rigour. PoorEd 08:29, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- Depends on what sub-field of anthropology we are talking about. Until recently the dominance of cultural anthropology has been the major determent. But with the rise of human evolutionary anthropology, ecological anthropology I think things are improving. Sociology still seems to be mostly arm-chair theorizing but more and more are actually going to census records and other sources of data to try and ground their conclusions in something more...rigorous. I would still say psychology has inherited many less than scientific ideas and procedures but with increasing dominance of evolutionary ideas and neuroscience influence (particularly imaging methods!) this should fade to the fringe very soon. EnVe 22:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- I suppose I should be more tolerant of the social sciences' claim to rigorous scientific method. And you are quite right. I wouldn't be able to make a case for the superiority of any of the branches of psychology when it comes to their relative scientific merit. But I'd be curious as to why you would consider any of them more scientific than anthropology. PoorEd 21:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Is Psychology mostly bullshit?[edit]
Considering we know so little about the brain, and that every year psychologists 'discover' a host of new 'ailments' and add it to their diagnostic guide, and since they seem to delight in pathologising the great mass of humanity who happen to have slight difference compared with some supposed 'normative' idealised person... my question is quite simple - is psychology mostly bullshit? Apart from extreme mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and certain types of mania/major depression, I simply cannot conceive why so many people are in hoc to these people, why they allow them to categorise them so thoroughly. Humanity is an infinitely complex and little understood entity, and will remain so until we can really figure out what is going on inside our brains. Just my two cents, for what its worth. Marcus Cicero SPQR
20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S- The reason why I raise this question is because many in the so called 'skeptical' community don't really bother to question the core assumptions behind psychology, which ultimately is merely a social science which has been given a veneer of scientific respectability. Marcus Cicero SPQR 20:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC) P.P.S- I also hate it when the psycho-analysts start tearing apart my favourite books. Marcus Cicero SPQR 20:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you need to start by dealing with the differences between psychology and psychiatry. The bus came by/and I got on.
20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough I suppose. I'm aggrieved by the inherent belief by many in the community who seem to think the vast majority of people have some kind of condition as opposed to merely being 'different'. Marcus Cicero SPQR 21:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say that there's a difference between people simply being different and experiencing distress/impairment. Is someone who is nervous speaking in front of people pathological? Probably not. What about someone who has a panic attack at the mere thought of speaking in public? What if it makes them unable to fulfill the obligations of their job? I agree that the American Psychiatric Association has gone overboard but you have an odd picture of psychology. There is vast amounts of research showing that many of these problems are serious and that we can treat them to a significant. I'd also point that a lot of this categorization that you complain of has more to do with the insurance companies than it has to do with us. We hate it too for the most part. Ayzmo (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Worth pointing that Psychology has mostly been interested in areas unrelated to pathology. The common perception of a psychologist as a health professional is not entirely accurate, although clinical psychology is increasingly dominating the field.
- The objection that illness exists on a spectrum is a sophomoric issue - Yes being ill is a binary label applied to a situation with shades of grey. However, being comatose with a cold is not usually challenged on the grounds that you are just at the extremely low end of physical functioning and therefore not ill. If you feel that illness is too pejorative a term to be applied to a person then you don't have a problem with psychology, rather you want to challenge the whole of medicine (with a semantic argument no less). Good luck with that. Tielec01 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say that there's a difference between people simply being different and experiencing distress/impairment. Is someone who is nervous speaking in front of people pathological? Probably not. What about someone who has a panic attack at the mere thought of speaking in public? What if it makes them unable to fulfill the obligations of their job? I agree that the American Psychiatric Association has gone overboard but you have an odd picture of psychology. There is vast amounts of research showing that many of these problems are serious and that we can treat them to a significant. I'd also point that a lot of this categorization that you complain of has more to do with the insurance companies than it has to do with us. We hate it too for the most part. Ayzmo (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough I suppose. I'm aggrieved by the inherent belief by many in the community who seem to think the vast majority of people have some kind of condition as opposed to merely being 'different'. Marcus Cicero SPQR